User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2008/Aug

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Newyorkbrad. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome

Welcome! (back!)

Hello, Newyorkbrad/Archive/2008, and welcome back to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay longer than last time! Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

WB man, you were missed. Kwsn (Ni!) 00:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(Grin left by —Animum (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC))

Huzzah! --Conti|✉ 00:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yay we missed you, Freak \o/ ...--Comet styles 01:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Y tal. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Marked active on AC page

Welcome back to active duty :-) --FloNight ♥♥♥ 01:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

An award

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For having the courage to return to Wikipedia in the wake of off-wiki harassment, I hereby present you with the Barnstar of Diligence. TML (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, a few days ago someone named a barnstar after you. See Wikipedia:BARNSTAR#Wikipedia-space_Barnstars for details. TML (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

G'day Brad

and I hope the weight of expectation isn't too cumbersome! - You'll be well aware no doubt of matters which would benefit from your attention! I hope to persuade you to give an interview before too long, because I think many will be interested, and there's much to say! - meantime just a happy 'hello' and welcome back! Privatemusings (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)I noticed you ease yourself back with comment at an arbcom case review happening ;-)

Already voted. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

yup! - just spotted that one, and changed my sneaky whisper above accordingly - I'll no doubt be bending your ear for further advice at some point - by the way... if you can close a case in 20 odd hours.. there's a 'school in a box' heading to some folk who could use it! Privatemusings (talk) 01:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

yay

Sticky Parkin 03:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A fresh start

Here's to a fresh start, Brad. Best of luck as you re-assimilate yourself into editing and general existence on Wikipedia, and as you re-enter the fray of administrative and arbitration-related work. Glad you're back, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Good to see

Your return is great to see. I wish you the best.--MONGO 04:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

. 903M (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Huzzahs are in order!

Huzzah! --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for coming back. We need editors like you. By the way, QP10qp got Learned Hand featured, about two weeks back. --Meld shal 42? 11:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

We've had some useful edits from NYB on that this morning, and, of course, many of us worked on that project. At the risk of adding further to the excruciation, a discreet British yaye to the good news! qp10qp (talk) 11:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Next DC Meetup

FYI - the next DC meetup is on September 6th, should you be in the area and interested in coming. --Aude (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC) (Happy to see you editing here)

Welcome Back!

to the same old place you laughed about... Rosencomet (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome Back, Newyorkbrad!

Two barnstars for you!

		The Newyorkbrad Dispute Resolution Barnstar
		Since no one has given you one yet! :D ≈ MindstormsKid 23:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		You deserve it, NYB. Good luck, in both RL and WL (Wikipedia life :D)! ≈ MindstormsKid 23:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what? How did I miss this? Welcome back! the wub "?!" 13:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad I read the userrights log. :) Welcome back. Acalamari 16:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well done

I think you've nailed it. ATren (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

endorsed. Welcome back. --Abd (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back

<smile> Avb 23:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Principles

While I left some suggestions for modification to a few of the principles, I was wondering: What is the current practice as far as modifying a principle? (In other words, is being bold allowable? or not preferred? Or?) - jc37 01:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't edit the text that I (or someone else) wrote, except to fix obvious typos. But you can put your own alternative proposal as a comment in "Comments by others", or you can create your own section of the workshop page and post your proposed alternatives there (and add cross-references in my section if you really want to make my life easier). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Then (hopefully) I did it correctly on that page. Thank you : ) - jc37 01:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Good to have you back

Restored this with you in mind during your hiatus.

You've been missed by many. Now you must be very busy so I'll toddle on my way. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 02:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ditto, nice to see you back :) --Golbez (talk) 12:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

WB

You're back! Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 17:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

		The Resilient Barnstar
		Passing on my resilience! WB! Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 17:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Because no one seems to be reading anything before posting out of elation, please note NYB's comment above: As a personal favor, I request that undue attention of the "Newyorkbrad's back!!!!" variety not be placed on my return. This will be sincerely appreciated. Keeper ǀ 76 17:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Without undue elation then, welcome back NYB! (Yours with great elation) Franamax (talk) 03:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

Unrelated to this case; in the other case I was involved in, the editor in question was fully convinced she was being harassed, by me and others, and she definitely felt harassed, regardless of the reality of that perception. Don't want to leave that door open too wide. (So glad to see you back in the saddle.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The word "reasonably" does a lot of work in a lot of contexts. See also reasonable person. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

NYB, I sent an e-mail to Kirill a few days ago, but I see from his contribs that he hasn't been active on Wiki in the last few days. Can you confirm whether ArbCom got an August 14, fairly trivial e-mail from me forwarded by Kirill? If not, I'll need to resend. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

My inbox is pretty crowded right now so it's hard for me to remember without knowing the subject-matter. Safest would be to resend it to me, and I'll forward it (again?) if it doesn't look familiar. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, will do. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I forwarded it to the e-mail I had for you from the beginning of the year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Received and forwarded to the list. (FYI, arbitrators' e-mails are listed at WP:AC.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Newyorkbrad, thank you for your contribution to the discussion at my recent RfA. If ever you have any concerns about my actions, adminly or otherwise, don't hesitate to let me know. And welcome back, by the way! Best wishes, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

opinion

I think doctors need consent to do surgery on people as well as take their pictures for publication, at least from the consent form that I signed a few years ago. Do you think that Wikipedia should try to insure that patient photos do have consent? Or should we insist on our right to publish and ignore the rights of patients? I would like an informal opinion, not a legal declaration. Thanks. 903M (talk) 04:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

NOINDEX

I don't know if you'd noticed this; I just did: Check this out. rootology (T) 02:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm keeping an eye on the discussion. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

blatant canvassing

FWIW, if you haven't already, please check out these comments by Alecmcconroy. I personally think that this is the most invaluable comment so far in the entire case, and my hopes are that while your colleagues haven't been very responsive so far, that this will get due consideration. user:Everyme 12:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I've read the comments along with many other users' and will give them consideration. I hope everyone will bear in mind that there are eight or more other arbitrators who'll also be voting in this case; the final outcome is hardly up to me alone. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Certified.Gangsta

Hi there, I'm contacting you regarding User:Certified.Gangsta as you were involved in his case at the Arbitration Committee. I would like to notify you that he has resumed heavy edit warring, most recently at Wikipedia:WikiProject China/to do, Jay Chou and Taiwanese American, and that I am also concerned at the level of his POV edits on Taiwan-related articles, which he describes as "POV balancing". Once such example is at [1], which I reverted and attempted to discuss, but in turn simply had my comment deleted [2]. I'm not asking for action (yet) but I felt the need to notify the higher-ups of his behaviour, and I am not clear on the exact process for voicing my concerns. Regards, --Joowwww (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I was involved in the prior case as an Arbitration Committee Clerk, rather than in the actually deciding the case. As you may be aware (see discussion on the case talkpage), in December 2007, the ArbCom decided to lift the restrictions previously imposed on Certified.Gangsta. If you believe that problems still exist, you should use the ordinary means of dispute resolution, which can culminate in a new request for arbitration if nothing else works. Of course, you should begin by seeking to discuss any issues with him directly; you should also, as a courtesy, alert him to the existence of this thread. Hope this helps. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration case - new evidence

If you haven't already, please see my comment on the proposed decision talk page regarding the submission of any new evidence. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you still planning to submit additional evidence in the case? Last call, please. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe Viridae did submit it already [3]. Cla68 (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I did see that the other, but from his post on proposed decision talk, thought there would be more coming, which may have been an error on my part. I'll clarify my comment on Viridae's talk. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks heaps!

...for making yourself available for the interview we recorded tonight - now posted here, here, and also available through iTunes, or any other clever 'podcast' type program here.

I've also set up a section on our Central Page for folk to submit some questions, or suggest topics for the possible panel discussion we'll try and setup in a fortnight or so - my experience has been that these things take a little longer to come together than one might think, so hopefully this is a good notice period.

Thanks heaps for being part of 'Not The Wikipedia Weekly', and I thoroughly enjoyed chatting with you! I very much look forward to getting a few more folk around the table, and having another chat in due course, at a time convenient to you :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, you sounded exactly as I expected you would. Very interesting interview, thanks for sharing with all of us. Risker (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Note from Newyorkbrad

Away for the weekend with limited Internet access unti Sunday night or Monday morning. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Reminder

This is a reminder that the WikiNYC Picnic is tomorrow (August 24) from 2 PM to 8 PM. If you plan on being lost, be sure to come ahead of time! To clarify, the picnic will be taking place within or adjacent to the Picnic House in Prospect Park, Brooklyn. I hope to see you there! --harej 03:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Steve Crossin

Re User:Steve Crossin, I was wondering if you'd be willing to share your thoughts on this matter. Particularly, I don't understand what the committee stands to gain from taking this situation away from the community to handle. -- Ned Scott 20:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I was away from WP from Friday until this evening (see post two items above), and haven't participated in the committee's discussion of this situation (which is not to say that I disagree with the decision). I'll try to get caught up on the case in the next day or so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I know you're busy. -- Ned Scott 01:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Hi Newyorkbrad. Thank you for your comment on Wikipedia:Request for arbitration. I had not read the above statement by JJB, but I actually came here with the same question... you write that "arbitrators actually read through some of the cited sources to compare them with the uses that PHG was making of them, and verified that the problems were real.": could you actually point me to what these sources are specifically, and in what sense arbitrators considered I would have misrepresented them? Cheers PHG (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

A treat...

		The Special Barnstar
		For your um, colorful contributions to RFA with poems, I present you this Special Barnstar. Thanks for being here. --Lord ₪Sunday 17:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Welcome back! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very pleased to see you back, NYB. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome! Marlith (Talk) 15:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yay! You're back! bibliomaniac 1 5 03:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

What, did you really expect us to honor your request that "undue attention of the "Newyorkbrad's back!!!!" variety not be placed on my return"? Ha.--Father Goose (talk) 04:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Newyorkbrad's back!!!!

Awesome! Welcome back dude! JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 16:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Great to see you back, Brad. Zocky | picture popups 14:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

We missed you. Glad to see you back contributing to the wiki. PerfectProposal 18:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I just saw your post to ANI and realized you are back (I'm always the last to know). I see above that you didn't want gushing "welcome back" attention, but I can't begin to tell you how pleased I am to see you editing again. As Alison said, it really makes my day. Well, enough inappropriate gushing and back to work. — Satori Son 20:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka-PHG

Congratulations on surviving the gauntlet! Your comments on Elonka's current case reminded me of my question but I see I already asked it of you here as (1) (at an infortuitous time), relating to this case and proposed amendment. Could you kindly give me a yes or no now as to whether you might have time to provide the community with the specific items of Elonka's evidence validated by ArbCom? Just a few examples to back up your statement that PHG's sourcing "problems were real". Thank you! JJB 14:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC) And thank you also for your very appreciated comments on Cla68 et al., among which I might allude to your "minor edits" section as helpfully answering some of my other questions in the PHG et al. case. JJB 14:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sam Blacketer has responded appropriately. I am very thankful for how each of you has attended to this case. JJB 14:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser

I made a response here here to your comment here regarding the authority to give out CheckUser privileges. Foundation checkuser policy allows for community-based elections where the community prefers it but that will never happen here because people keep making the same uninformed statements about Arbcom privileges. naerii 19:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Responded there. The wording of the policy is a bit unclear but you do have a point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

sincere thanks

for your efforts in ensuring appropriate momentum in the 'uber' arb case.... I've left a short note at the 'latest news' section on the proposed decision talk page - and just wanted to swing by personally to say that despite my (fairly strong and sustained) criticism of the processes at play here, your efforts to keep things 'on the rails' is both vital and appreciated.... so thanks! Privatemusings (talk) 04:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Stellar work, Brad~~der~~ (you don't mind if I call you Bradder, do you? On second thought....), though I find it shameful that you are left to pick up the slack for your less energetic colleagues. I hope the Foundation takes their absenteeism in account when calculating annual bonuses next year. Hit 'em where it hurts, Michael Snow! (whoever that is)--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Deja Vu

Completely independently of PM above, I too, having criticized the outcome of the case, but wanted to come by and make it especially clear that I wasn't criticizing you, that I do appreciate you coming back, and that I didn't want to shoot the messenger.

I'm sure there is will be frustration from all sides that nothing got definitely settled-- but before you came back, we didn't even have a definite that nothing was going to get definitely settled at this point. And you do lay the groundwork for things to get settled at some future date, which I'm sure will happen sooner or later. So, seriously, thank you for taking a stab at it and giving it your best The project is a better place with you in it. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Effective warnings

Warnings may be sufficient if parties to a case actually read the case. At least one party to the Omnibus Administrator Conduct Case has told me that they have not event read the case, because they find the criticism of themselves to be odious. Before letting people off with just a warning, you might want to solicit from them a statement that they have reviewed the case and taken the feedback on board, whether or not they agree with it. Jehochman ^Talk 07:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant, NYB, truly.

Re:[4], your comment in the RfAr for Elonka. Brilliant analysis! Thanks for your thoughtful consideration of the issues, we need more of this. I'm a fan of good "legal" analysis (which, of course, includes Public policy or WP:IAR), I used to love to read Supreme Court decisions, until, well, you know.... late 2000. --Abd (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"signal-to-noise ratio has been much too high" ... I think you wanted to write "low". High signal-to-noise is generally seen as a good thing. Except in certain kinds of punk rock music. :-) --GRuban (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Although I am a Ramones fan.... Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In those cases, the signal is the noise. I know, pretty profound, right? :) MastCell ^Talk 22:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Under some conditions, a little noise can make the signal clear, depends on the kind of signal and the kind of noise. --Abd (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You have mail

Cheers, Martinp (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply to unrevised comment

I think the community does trust you Brad, but the long delay has strained confidence in ArbCom in general. Give it your best shot, and good luck. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. I don't know of anyone who doesn't trust you or your judgment in this case; I hope my comments haven't seemed to be aimed at you, just because you happen to be the only person speaking. They aren't. The concern is where the case would be without you, and where it could go if you're not around in the event there's a next time or to make sure the findings and remedies are upheld. I hope you're proven right, and there won't be a next time. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I noticed your comment as well Brad, and I wanted to say that I've re-read your proposals many times now and honestly believe you have produced the "lightest touch" possible to achieve the desired outcome, assuming the good faith of all concerned. In another place, I have had some experience of working within a committee, over almost 30 years, in trying to craft good decisions on sanctions and appeals. It is an incredibly difficult process and sometimes dispiriting when you receive the reaction to your efforts. I can only affirm that I believe you have got it right in this case, despite the impossibility of pleasing all constituencies. Thank you, good luck to you, and power to your elbow, Brad! --RexxS (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Note from Newyorkbrad

Travelling until Tuesday (it's a holiday weekend in the U.S.) with possibly limited Internet access. I will respond to posts here as soon as possible. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)