User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2010/May

I like the way you handled that

Regarding: [1]: nice work! Great way to assume good faith, welcome a new user, and try to avert a potential problem without driving away a new contributor. It's a good example for others to follow. I've been away from Wikipedia for a bit, so I don't know if barnstars are still popular, but here's one for you, anyway:

		The Original Barnstar
		I award this barnstar to Newyorkbrad for setting a great example in how to avert potential problems without scaring away new contributors. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocks

I think your analysis is pretty good for the question of whether these sort of rumors should be included. I'm unsure about this as well. The question about the block is really bothering me though. I edited three times and was blocked by a person I had never talked to. It was really weird.Onefinalstep (talk) 06:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Underway Regarding DC Meetup #10

• You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
  
• Please be advised that planning is now underway (see here) for DC Meetup #10. --NBahn (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi Newyorkbrad, I'd like to get a clarification about the measures proposed by you in the Gibraltar Arbitration Case. Although I don't agree with them (possibly all the convicts in a jail claim they're not guilty) I respect your conclusions and proposed remedies. However, I'd like to get a clear definition of what "[being] topic-banned from editing Gibraltar and other articles concerning the history, people, and political status of Gibraltar, broadly construed, for three months" accurately means. I say that because I've actually stepped back from the most controversial Gibraltar-related articles since the beginning of this year (I wasn't finding any pleasure in wasting my time and efforts in endless discussions) and I devoted to actual writing of non-controversial Gibraltar-related articles. Since then, I've started a number of articles (such as Gibtelecom, the incumbern telecom operator in Gibraltar, John Mackintosh Square, the main square in Gibraltar, Juan Mateos, the founder of the first hospital in Gibraltar, Ralph Heskett, the Catholic bishop-elect of Gibraltar, Alonso Hernández del Portillo, the first historian of Gibraltar, Tommy Finlayson, the Gibraltarian historian that authored the canonical work on the evacuation of the Gibraltarians during the WWII, Our Lady of Europe, the main marian devotion in Gibraltar, John Baptist Scandella, the first Gibraltarian Catholic bishop of Gibraltar, Gibraltar Medallion of Honour...; you can randomly read any of them and verify that they're not controversial at all) and more are under construction (User:Ecemaml/Nursery/List of Gibraltar placenames, recording historic Spanish-language names of Gibraltar places, or User:Ecemaml/Nursery/Grand Casemates Square, the other significant square in Gibraltar ). The most significant (IMHO) issue is not the number of articles, but the fact that I'm co-operating with Gibraltarian editors (such as Gibmetal77) and I think it's paying the effort (the articles are usually started in my nursery, Gibmetal reviews and expands them and finally they're moved to the main space).

As you can see, most of them are related to the history of Gibraltar (so they would be included int he topic ban you're proposing), but not to the actual dispute with Spain. Therefore, I'd like to get your input on how to proceed in case I'm topic-banned for three months. First of all, may I go on working in my personal space? If so, is there a way to move the articles to the main space provided that a Gibraltarian editor makes appropriate sanity checks and actually moves the article (that is, I won't be allowed to move any article from my personal space to the main one; after being moved I won't edit them in a three-month time)? As an aside, I'd like to state that even if the topic ban is not finally passed, I won't edit, at least in a near future, any controversial article on Gibraltar. It has wasted too much of my time and effors in the English Wikipedia. Anyway, I'll duly accept any indication from you and from the ArbCom. Best regards and thank you for your efforts --Ecemaml (talk) 09:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I've held off on responding to your note here because, as you will have seen, I proposed an alternative remedy instead of the topic-ban and it appears that that is the one which will be passing. Therefore, you will not be topic-banned relating to Gibraltar, simply admonished for the prior problems reminded that you should edit in accordance with all the applicable principles and guidelines, including the ones specified in the decision. Thanks for your attention to the decision, and best wishes for happier editing, especially on some other topics. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Newyorkbrad. Unfortunatelly, the convention in the Spanish Wikipedia is different and users answer to messages in the other user's talk page. Thus I missed your answer until now :-)

Thank you for your answer and also for proposing a different solution for my situation. I'll try to meet the expectations. Best regards and thank you --Ecemaml (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Meat Puppetry

[2] Topic bans seem kind of pointless, when people are already finding ways round them, given they already confer by email off-wiki [3]. Justin talk 17:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern that remedies, in this or any case, are subject to gaming through off-wiki coordination. However, the first edit you cite indicates that one editor was offering to share sources with another. Unless there is more to the situation than that, I don't see a substantial problem. That being said, in a controversial topic-area like this one, it may be best for everyone to keep communications about article-content on-wiki, for greater transparency. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The editing patterns made it blatantly apparent that they were co-ordinating off-wiki for some time. They're now so confident they discuss it openly and you still do nothing? Justin talk 12:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Baiting

[4] I asked a favour as I'm having problems again right now. Have you seen what someone has added to it? Floating over my request is text in white, ROFLMAO!, I can't see how it was done but really I don't need more of this right now. Justin talk 15:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I've checked but I'm not seeing what you are referring to. Perhaps it was a temporary problem or someone has already addressed it? I'm sorry that I can't be of more help with this. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Congrats

Outing is now arbcom sanctioned. Really. Well done. Kudos. Dear lord, you should all hang your heads and take a lesson from Oliver Cromwell, you are no longer serving the community and should resign. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing we have said suggests that outing of editors is acceptable. We've made it clear that the conflict-of-interest allegations in this case could have been handled in a different fashion. Unfortunately, in light of the competing principles discussed in the decision itself, it does remain unclear how one should best address COI allegations without compromising the anonymity of an editor whose real-world identity is at the root of the alleged COI. As one of my colleagues remarked in his comment on that principle, the tension here is not created by the Arbitration Committee or by this decision, but in the structure of Wikipedia itself.

As for your other suggestion, I have no plans to resign (and I thank you for limiting your parallel to Oliver Cromwell to requesting my and my colleagues' resignations, rather than pointing to some of Cromwell's other techniques for dealing with leaders he disliked). For what it's worth, my term as an arbitrator expires at the end of the year. I am sure that many people who disagree with one or more of the dozens of votes I will have cast over a three-year term will express their views on my performance if I should decide to run for reelection, and you will have your opportunity to be among them. In the meantime, I will continue to enjoy the dubious pleasure of being entitled, in return for my contributions to the dispute-resolution process, to sit here and be addressed in an unpleasantly sarcastic fashion and be called various names. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Less than 24 hrs

[5] Cited, relevant and properly sourced but seemingly some editors do not like and have taken opportunity of topic bans to violate WP:NPOV, WP:RS and the discussion on the talk page to remove text they didn't like but had agreed to. How does one raise an issue under the discretionary sanctions?

Regarding Narson's comments above, arbcom has utterly ignored the fact that the two editors responsible were told to submit their "evidence" via email, yet chose to continue with outing in public until threatened by a block. Yet you have done nothing except slap one on the wrist and nothing to the other. Ecemaml has violated WP:CIVIL toward Gibnews since 2006, RHoPF has been uncivil towards people for years and his behaviour in the case was little short of harassment and naked personal attacks. Yet you did nothing. You punish the response but not the perpetrators. I at least have the excuse of being a little bit mad, what is theirs? Justin talk 12:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Particularly in the context of an article focused on the entire history of Gibraltar, I perceive the differences between these two versions of the page as slight. However, in the event there is significantly problematic behavior on Gibraltar or related articles, anyone is free to file a request for arbitration enforcement under the discretionary sanctions remedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Uuh, just dropped by to thank you for your efforts as a drafter in the Arbitration we've all just gone through. It is something valuable for the community.

With regard to the previous comments: here's the rationale for my edition. I am more than happy to discuss the changes in the pertinent talk page, so any input is welcome.

And that's all! Again, thanks. Cremallera (talk) 08:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"Voting Is Evil"?

Not so! Now, ranking, that's evil.  ;-)
See here and here.<br. />—NBahn (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Saturday, May 22

New York City Meetup Next: Saturday May 22nd, OpenPlans in Lower Manhattan Last: 03/21/2010

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikimedia Chapters Meeting 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wiki-Conference NYC and Wikipedia Cultural Embassy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Availability note

I'll be on a business trip to London for the next week with limited wikitime. I'll try to keep an eye on significant arbitration business, but my promises to look at things in mainspace, of which I have several outstanding, will have to wait until my return. Regards to all, Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration

Hi, Newyorkbrad. I am asking you as an arbitrator who knows all recent EE-related cases. Could you look at my conversation with Shell [6] and advise me? I do not know what exactly can I do to have this topic ban reviewed in a positive way, ever. I suggested this alternative. Or maybe there are some other possibilities? Otherwise, this looks indeed as an indefinite topic ban. Please keep in mind that I mostly edited in Biology, Chemistry and Soviet/Russian history areas. To be honest, I do not want editing anything at all right now (after the outings and the arbitration), but I still might wish to return to editing in a few months. I also asked Carcharoth ‎about this. Sorry for the trouble.Biophys (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There are two issues here. First, I am asking at least to provide any clear criteria for reviewing my topic ban after a year. If I edit in other areas and have no trouble, would that be enough? Shell tells "no". If I edit in the conflict area, under a close watch, to prove that I can resolve or avoid the conflicts, would that be OK? Shell tells "no". Another pressing issue for me is editing from the compromised account after the outing and off-wiki posts. I have no problem reporting my new account to Arbcom and any responsible administrators. But editing from my current account, especially in the fields related to my real expertise, is something I am not going to do.Biophys (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Now that I am back from my trip, I will be looking at the case in the next day or so. I will consider your comments in doing so. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 99 support, 9 oppose, and 2 neutral. Your support was much appreciated.

Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

MuZemike‎ could use a Checkuser

MuZemike‎ is having ALOT of problems in the past 15 minutes with socks of User:Mcjakeqcool, who is indef blocked. Mcjakeqcool has used Kevin Rutherford, User:MuZejacob, User:Sniffmyfeet, and User:Crimsonblazer (all blocked). If you could do a checkuser and sniff out any more socks, block those of course, and possibly check the range these are coming off of and do a range block, it would help MuZemike ALOT. Thanks Dude. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I really don't have the technical expertise to deal with rangeblocks, but I'll post this to the Arbcom mailing list and try to draw attention from someone who does. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie...all that would need to be done is the checkuser then. That should get rid of any remaining sleeper socks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

E-Mail

Oversight request in your email. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Another email, another request, same person, different IP. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll deal with it when I can, but I'm tied up right now voting in two arbitration cases, so if you can ping someone else this time that would be great. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you had. Someone did and it is all taken care of :) So no worries :) Take Care and Sorry to Bother Ya. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I got the first set, someone else the second. No problem. It was good to use the new version of the tool for the first time, actually; oversightation has hardly been a specialty of mine. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Keegscee

If you don't mind my asking, how else may this situation be addressed? I'm interested. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 22:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If the problem is as bad as you say it is, it can probably be addressed through a discussion on AN or ANI. The arbitration process usually takes several weeks, and is intended for situations where no other means of dispute resolution is available (or in some situations where problems cannot be addressed on-wiki because of sensitive issues or confidentiality concerns). Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I considered WP:AN, WP:AN/I, or WP:RfC, but I chose ArbCom because ArbCom was responsible for Keegscee's email block, due to confidentiality. Given this, I decided to skip the other three, but if you and your fellow arbitrators feel it best that this go through AN, then it shall. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 23:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's see what some of the other arbitrators have to say. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Guidance for younger editors

Newyorkbrad, I just happened to come across your essay Wikipedia:Guidance_for_younger_editors. It might be an idea to add a link to it on the "Create account" screen, perhaps highlighted by a colourful image, and recommend to kids that they should read it before registering. --JN466 06:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

(Sorry for the delay in responding; I was away last week and have been tied up the past couple of days with arbitration business.)

I hope that people find the essay helpful (in either the original form in which I created it, or the form that has now evolved, or some still other version). On the other hand, one moderately acerbic critic opined off-site that the essay was (paraphrased) "Newyorkbrad's attempt to avoid having young people edit Wikipedia by boring them to death", and on the talkpage it was suggested that the reading level of the page might not be the best. So I leave it to others to decide if some version of the page is useful and how it might be best publicized. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

At this time

How long is the history of this page to remain deleted? DuncanHill (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

And he's still an admin? Having a deleted talk page and being an admin seem directly incompatible. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me as a peanut from the gallery that his bit should be removed post haste. Off2riorob (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I think it is pretty obvious to anyone this person is in no state to continue being an admin. Aiken ♫ 16:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• It's worth noting also that he is still watching his talk page and removing postings from it. For him to still be logging in and editing his talk page while having the very rare privilege of the history being hidden from sight is really not on. DuncanHill (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Please pardon my delay in responding to these posts. I was out of the country on a business trip with very limited Internet time.

My request that the talkpage history remain deleted was based on reasons that I considered legitimate. I see no problem with this situation continuing as long as the user is not editing. Sporadic appearances for purposes such as unsubscribing from mailing lists is not really editing.

I will follow up on the other matters mentioned. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Will you at least commit to immediate undeletion the moment he 1)edits anything other than his talk page, or 2)uses admin tools, and place an instruction to that effect on his talk page? I see no reason for the special treatment he is receiving, and given his behaviour since the last return from "retirement" (a retirement that also started when he was blocked for disruption) I feel that there is a high likelihood of future disruption from him. DuncanHill (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The other side of the coin is that in many situations like this there are reasons to handle matters sensitively (most people probably realised that when they saw the notice Brad left on the talk page). That is not the same as special treatment, and all that is needed here is to alert us (that means one person alerting us, not the four people that turned up above). You may only be seeing part of the picture here, so rather than make demands that might make things worse, can you please let Brad and the rest of ArbCom handle this? i.e. commit to leaving us some discretion to exercise judgment rather than micromanaging our response? Carcharoth (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine, you don't want community input, just say so. You've prevented anyone bringing an Arbcom case about him by deleting half the evidence. Arbcom don't give any indication whatsoever that they're doing anything without repeated requests. Brad decides to impose a contrary to policy deletion when he knows he's not going to be available to respond to enquiries about it. "Management" seems not to be something that Arbcom is much cop at. DuncanHill (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want ArbCom action, putting a note on a single arbitrator's talk page isn't the way to do it. I notice you completely failed to pick up on the "sensitive" part of my post, and instead decided to object vigorously to the rest of what I said. Which is one way to completely miss the point, I guess. See here for more. One of the things to remember is that ArbCom has a lot of different things on its plate at the same time. A bit of patience is needed, and time to wait for responses as well. As you have been told the matter is being dealt with, there isn't much more that needs to be said, is there? Carcharoth (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll be blunt - I don't believe there is anything sensitive about this at all (except a bruised ego). He's lied before (even after having block logs and page histories pointed out to him) and I'm sure he's spinning you all a pretty yarn as to why he shouldn't be desysopped with extreme prejudice and why his talk page should get wiped clean. I've put up with a lot of crap on Wikipedia (see the oversighted vandalism on my talk user page for starters) but special treatment (and that is what it is) for an admin who abuses the email function when someone has the temerity to ask that policy be followed is too bloody much. There was sod all on his talk page last time I looked before the deletion to justify it being deleted. If there was anything "sensitive" on it it could easily have been oversighted a week ago. That didn't happen - and with so many arbs and admins looking at it I'm sure anything that should have been oversighted would have been by now. I come here to ask a perfectly reasonable question - how long - and get the bloody runaround from someone who obviously thinks it's OK to treat editors like idiots. What a shower. DuncanHill (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I see the misunderstanding here. The sensitive matter isn't about his user talk page. That is the error of presumption you made here. And quite why you are speculating about his talk page history in relation to what this sensitive matter is (rather than trusting our judgment) demonstrates that you are losing perspective here and need to drop this. Carcharoth (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

So there is no reason for his talk page to be deleted. I don't want to "scour his talk page history to find out what this sensitive matter is" - I never said that, I never suggested that, and I don't know why you made that up. His talk page history is relevant to whether or not he should be allowed to remain an admin - or even an editor. Policy and precedent are clear on the issue of deletion of user talk pages - it's done by MfD, and then rarely. You have confirmed that there is nothing sensitive about the talk page, so it should be undeleted forthwith. DuncanHill (talk) 20:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• Can I just interject here and say, as one with more experience of this particular Admin than most, I think it wise and preferable to just leave things as they are. Doubtless, the matter will have to be dealt with sooner or later, but at this precise moment in time, it is probably best dealt with later. I suggest everyone just read between the lines and wait and see what happens. I think it best that this thread closes and all other threads pertaining to that editor also - at the moment he is no problem, petulant little posts on his talk can be ignored - forget him, deal with problems when they become problems.  Giacomo  21:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

By way of update, Tbsdy lives has agreed to relinquish his adminship, and I've posted the appropriate request on Meta. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That may be, but he does not appear to have given up making pointless attacks on three long standing editors (which I have removed [7]) I suggest the page is blanked and given full protection.  Giacomo  13:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Has he relinquished under a cloud? Or is he free to get it back whenever he changes his mind? DuncanHill (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, automatic restoration of adminship on request would not apply in this instance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Whatever he decides to do, I will support. However, his rubbish and attacks I will not [8]; if he wishes to be clever, then he needs to find another forum. I am more than hapy to be banned over this myself and break 3R if need be, he implies he was driven off by 3 editors. In his dreams, this may be so, in reality it was not, so I do not see why those three editors have to pay the price to protect one "Admin" who should have been desysopped months ago! Giacomo  17:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Procedural question

Hi. In this edit, you wrote that "the request for an amendment may be renewed, with a link to this discussion." Where might I find the correct procedure for renewing an amendment, as I am having trouble locating it? Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 20:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You'd just post it as a new request for amendment, with a link to the prior discussion and an update on how the situation had not improved since then. In any event, hopefully this won't turn out to be necessary. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again!   — Jeff G. ツ 21:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Question about guideline for content

Hi,

I thought that your comment in the Gibraltar articles ArbCom about not mixing opinion and facts was very relevant. On the other hand, I have a doubt and would like to ask you for some guidance (if possible). One of the main problems we are having there (all of the parties, regardless of the "side") is to reach consensus about what facts (meaning undisputed things that we all agree are true) should be included in the article. Each side tends to include facts that it thinks are important while the other "side" thinks they are irrelevant. E.g.: all sources (regardless of their POV) mention episode "X", but part of the editors say that episode "X" is irrelevant and only mentioned in those sources because they are longer than an enciclopedic article; on the other hand, other editors say that if episode "X" is mentioned by all sources it should be at least briefly summarised.

Is there a guideline that can help us decide whether an accepted issue would better be included in an article? I mean, the way WP:NOTABILITY helps us decide whether we should keep an article or not. The problem is that this guideline explicitly does "not directly limit the content of articles" and WP:NPOV deals with balancing viewpoints such as "POV A says that X is white and POV B says that it is black" (not with whether some undisputed fact should be in the article). If we could use some guideline or some "rule-of-thumb" probably many unhealthy discussions could be avoided...

I have not been able to find any guideline, but this could just be because I have missed something (a very probable hypothesis, no irony implied...) Thank you very much for your time!! -- Imalbornoz (talk) 08:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to try to help if I can, but every one of these situations should be decided based on its own facts, so it's doubtful that there is a specific guideline or policy page that will help resolve all disputes. But perhaps Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight (usually cited as "WP:UNDUE") may be helpful, especially the fourth paragraph. If others reading this page have suggestions, please pitch in. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! That paragraph is just about it. So I guess it's just a matter of applying common sense and reaching consensus on what is too much detail or not... Any further comment will be welcome. Thanks again! -- Imalbornoz (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Applying common sense, which means that you do not have to shoe horn the same fact into each and every article on a particular topic, nor do you have to have a list of "atrocities" in an overview article. Nor does it mean that you construct an artificial metric to justify the edit you desire, nor accuse other editors of censorship. It does however require a sensible and mature discussion about relevance to a particular article and recognition that sometimes in the interests of brevity certain facts should be trimmed. BTW just for information I have cited WP:DUE as suitable information to Imalbornoz more times than I care to count. Justin talk 16:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

There are many things that I could tell you, Justin, but I don't want to argue. Thank you very much, Newyorkbrad. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 11:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

"If others reading this page have suggestions, please pitch in.", which I did, I wasn't looking for an argument. As usual you presume bad faith but no doubt at some point in the future will spin it differently. I have at various points given you plenty of good advice about policy, you have consistently presumed bad faith eg [9]. I see that arbcom's failure to deal with all aspects of the case in its rush to judgement and failure to deal with problematic behaviour by others is leading to further bad tempered exchanges on Talk:Gibraltar and again the same here. Mediation is not the next step in imposing content, which is the message you've come away with. Nor is it about inventing guidelines, or using guidelines to force content you wish into an article, wikipedia is supposed to be about co-operation and working together and respecting others views. You now have the view that its about baiting an editor into intemperate comments and then working arbcom to get them banned.

So tell me Imalbornoz, why when I talked about WP:UNDUE did you ignore it, to respond with accusations of censorship and suppressing material? I'm interested to know. Justin talk

Question about my Topic Ban

HMS Tireless (S88) to which my addition of a {{fact}} tag has been removed and a fairly naked threat about reporting to admins left behind by Cremallera [10] for taking an issue to the talk page. Is this article included in my topic ban obliquely by the phrase broadly construed, ie if either Cremallera or Ecemaml can manufacture a vague link to Gibraltar then I can be intimidated into not editing any article? As an aside I am getting very irritated by both editors following my contributions into other areas of the project (where they've never edited). I have been trying to avoid controversy but it seems strange that whatever I edit IP editors want to edit war or those two follow me around. Please help. Justin talk 11:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry to bother you again. Justin left me a courtesy note here, which I have already replied to in his user page.

I have HMS Tireless' article in my watchlist, and yesterday it popped up five times because User:Justin A Kuntz tagged and reverted Rwendland & David Biddulph's editions thrice ([11], [12] & [13]). The paragraph in question is this one:

“ In May 2000, Tireless developed a serious leak in the nuclear reactor primary cooling circuit. The nuclear propulsion system was shut down and using backup diesel power Tireless made way to Gibraltar. The damage was found to be more extensive than first hoped, and the boat remained at Gibraltar, creating diplomatic tensions between Spain and Britain, until she left on 7 May 2001, nearly a year later following extensive repairs. During that year, all Trafalgar-class submarines were inspected for similar problems. ”

Which I think is pretty obviously related to Gibraltar. Of course, I left a comment in the talk page explaining why I considered the tag to be unwarranted, and restored David Biddulph's version. Needless to say, I have not reported the issue to any admin but I've advised the aforementioned editor to look for further help if needed, because the user he was arguing with has been topic banned by an Arbcom decision. I have nothing more to add at this point. Thanks for your time. Cremallera (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

In general terms, I would say that writing about the ship itself would be okay, but focusing on Gibraltar-related aspects of the controversy would be within the topic area that you've been asked to avoid. In this specific instance, given that the state of the ship became an international issue precisely because it triggered an aspect of the U.K.-Spain dispute regarding the status of Gibraltar, this probably falls within the area that you would be better advised to leave to other editors for the present. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The citation needed tag referred to the leak, which was contained by the safety systems ie never became a serious issue. I was doing nothing related to the controversy, it was solely related to the submarine. Am I not even allowed to discuss an edit now? I add a tag and initiate a discussion and its closed down with a wall of text and a threat.

So let me get this straight whatever oblique reference they can invent they can use to shoe horn me out of an article, they can then spin the article how they want, Cremallera has already expunged from other Gibraltar articles that the US Navy routinely services Los Angeles class attack submarines in the Campo de Gibraltar area. And the article has been rewritten to imply a major nuclear accident, which it wasn't and it is not related to Gibraltar only obliquely. Does NPOV actually mean anything to people anymore?

Oh and does bugging and using arbcom sanctions to intimidate editors not come under the discretionary sanctions? I have avoided any area related to sanctions, every time I try and edit somewhere else up pops Ecemaml or Cremallera. I feel like I am being hounded from wikipedia and every time I ask for help I'm ignored.

Let me guess I snap with frustration, I'll get blocked for incivility? Justin talk 14:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Seriously. This is getting ridiculous.

• The only reason why you've edited the Tireless' article is because of the controversial repair at Gibraltar. There are other 6 Trafalgar Class submarines and you've never shown any interest in them nor in their 'parent' article.
• I've copypasted the relevant content of the reliable source attached to the paragraph, which explicitly and sufficiently dealt with the matter you were requesting a citation for. I will spare you the "walls of text" if you read the references from now on.
• Again, I have not threatened you. You are topic banned and you have to respect the topic ban. Stop playing the victim here.
• "Cremallera has already expunged from other Gibraltar articles that the US Navy routinely services Los Angeles class attack submarines in the Campo de Gibraltar area" because, as you point out, this is not related to Gibraltar, but to the joint Spain/US base located in Rota, Cádiz (which is not in Campo de Gibraltar); and your preferred version was a nice display of original research in the form of WP:SYN. You are very welcome to edit in the proper article. If you are really interested in US bases in Spanish soil, there's also a joint air base in Morón, Seville, and there was one in Zaragoza. You could write about the two latest Dissimilar air combat training conducted in Gando, Canary Islands, as well. I will gladly help you there.
• No article has been rewritten to imply a major nuclear accident.
• And, for the last time, I am not hounding you so cut out that discourse. Cremallera (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

When I tried to extend the article about Rota, an IP editor appeared to undo everything I tried to do. Equally co-incidentally Ecemaml ensured the images I uploaded were deleted being a duplicate of images on commons, co-incidentally uploaded the same day that I did. Further co-incidence Falklands articles I substantially expanded were visited by Ecemaml where he has never edited before. But no one is hounding me at all, its all co-incidence, just like you telling me I'm being ridiculous is not in any way a personal attack. The information on Rota you agreed to include after discussion in talk as cited, relevant and sourced, letting the reader make up their minds and was in no way WP:SYN but simply stating cited, relevant and sourced information, that you removed as soon as my topic ban came into force, less than 24 hrs afterward in fact. Justin talk 16:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

When does this expire please? And may I ask do you intend to do something about those editors following my contributions on wikipedia? Justin talk 12:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

you are mentioned on AN

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#General_discussion_-_community_ban_discussion_durations

You are well respected and your opinion is sought. As a lawyer, you understand process, fairness, and strategy. Care to comment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suomi Finland 2009 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I will read through the discussion (which I had been following generally) and provide some input, though I may not be able to do so until late tonight or in the morning. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I took a close look and most of what I would have said in this discussion had already been covered by others, but I've added some thoughts. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Note re Lar/Polargeo

The situation between Lar and Polargeo, similar to the situation between Lar and Stephen Shultz is escalating. Here is the sequence of events:

1. Polargeo adds some views to the uninvolved admin section.
2. Lar moves these and adds one of his own views.
3. Polargeo reverts this, accidentally removing Lar's view.
4. Hipocrite returns Lar's view.
5. Lar move's polargeo's view again, and threatens to block Polargeo if he returns his view.

Lar was asked to stop removing views on his talk page and instead take a lower-drama action of noting his problems on the page by me, seconded by Thparkth.

This is rapidly spiriling out of control and needs emergy Arbcom intervention to prevent further disruption. I have asked both Lar and Polargeo to stop. Perhaps the individual who choses to stop first should be rewarded, as opposed to losing by default. Just a thought. Hipocrite (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Editingisdumb

So, was my welcome/warning to this user inapproriate in its gentility? Should I have simply warned them and flagged an admin? Sincerely wondering in order to prevent future fox paws, Fliponymous (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, but it's not a big deal. A gentle warning at first is the Wikipedia way except in truly blatant circumstances. Nothing to worry about. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

withdraw

How would I withdraw the request? Personally, I still don't like the slimy way that this person removed the material, but he does have the right to do so. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll take care of it for you. I hope you have some more positive editing experiences in the future. Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)