User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2009/Apr

BLPs

I thought you might find this thread interesting, particularly the number of (seemingly completely) unreferenced biographies of living people we have (approx. 1 out of 10). --MZMcBride (talk) 09:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm travelling this weekend but will take a look when I get home tonight. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bad news continues. Another possible 19,000 unreferenced biographies that aren't properly being taken into account (when things like the number of articles in Category:Unreferenced BLPs are looked at). Bah. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monty Python's Life of Brian ban in british town

NPR story --Jeremyb (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

Hey Brad, you've e-mail. Best, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you've got more. JFD (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adminbots

WP:BOT: "... When the Bot Approvals Group is satisfied that the bot is technically sound, they will approve the bot and recommend that it be given both 'bot' and 'sysop' rights. The bureaucrat who responds to the flag request acts as a final arbiter of the process and will ensure that an adequate level of community consensus (including publicity of approval discussion) underlies the approval. ..."

Adminbots are given separate accounts. One of the core tenets of the new policy is that adminbots should be segregated from their operator's account. (You have to be an admin already to operate one of course). Dragons flight (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I missed that. I'll modify accordingly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom and Aitias

Does this mean that the ArbCom is back on? Does he really think that he can slip in and slip out while he was supposed to be at ArbCom? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the case should only be necessary if he requests adminship back. Simply editing is not the issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He did the same thing to Ironholds. Blanking your page, stating a right to vanish, then going back on it, then disappearing, then coming back to oppose RfAs, its all just a little unsettling. Not as strange as this, but yeah. Maybe its just me. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

I've sent you an e-mail. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Received and responded. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A revision of your votes on Fof 4 variations would be appreciated. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be working through all the new comments and proposals later today. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The decision went live already. Oh well. :( Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have had very limited wiki-time over the past few days and due to some travel this will continue through the weekend. My apologies to anyone affected. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom questions re Macedonia

I'm not sure how you figure to pose the questions, whether to a member of one "faction" or to individual editors, but I'm game if there are any that you think I could answer. John Carter (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 7th DC Meetup

Please be advised that a proposed Meetup/DC 7 is being discussed here. We need your help to figure out some of the details! You are being sent this notice because you previously expressed interest in such meetups. If you no longer wish to receive such notices, then please leave your user name here.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TFA heads up

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 24, 2009 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will give it a clean read and probably add a couple of things between now and when the TFA goes live. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good one

This gave me a laugh. Nice one. Acalamari 23:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There was once a thread on Wikipedia Review asserting that I don't have a sense of humor, so I have to do my best to change their minds. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Mythdon has make a request of you at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong/Workshop#Recusing Newyorkbrad.3F. MBisanz ^talk 21:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I've posted an interim response there. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason fatigue

You are going to eventually get tired of being reasonable, trying to de-escalate and resolve conflicts amicably, and generally setting a good example. Right? :) I thought this was an excellent way forward, but of course rational solutions are no substitute for a nice, juicy pound of flesh. MastCell ^Talk 19:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for appreciating my approach to things. For a more negative assessment of my work as an arbitrator, please see User:Scott MacDonald/When to shoot an admiral. (Note also that I am close to losing patience in connection with one dispute currently on RfAr, although I would not be commenting as an arbitrator in that case.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By process of elimination, there's a 75% chance I am involved in the case, though I'm not exactly sure which one you refer to. Sorry about that. Jehochman ^Talk 20:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did see Scott's essay. Scott is a smart and generally sensible guy, but I remember thinking at the time that perhaps he needed to read Candide more carefully. After all, Voltaire was being sarcastic when he suggested that arbitrary and extreme punishment was good for morale. At least, that's what I was taught in 10th-grade English.

It's a bit troubling when people reserve their harshest criticism for those who share their general worldview but are insufficiently zealous in enforcing it. That's one dividing line between responsible advocacy and fanaticism. Wikipedia has a surfeit of zealous, crusading certainty, and a distinct lack of self-aware moderation and restraint. Don't feel bad for doing your part to redress that unfortunate balance. MastCell ^Talk 21:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cold fusion

In answer to your question: yes. I am already away from that article and pretty much was when Abd started his crusade. All I was ever interested in was preventing a serious and long-term abuse of Wikipedia, and that seems to have been nailed through the topic-bans of Pcarbonn and Jed Rothwell. If you look at the article history and my contributions you will see that a lengthy period elapsed between my last involvement there and Abd's decision to start the RfC. Guy (Help!) 03:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I remain unconvinced that this case is necessary. However, a pretty strong majority of the committee appear to remain of a contrary conclusion. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation

Previously, I said that I had lost respect for you after your vote to decline my case. I wanted to correct that publicly.

Your behavior throughout my case was distinguished. As the case progressed, it became quite clear to me that you genuinely have the best interests of the project in mind when you Arbitrate and edit. While you're certainly not alone in this, I felt it appropriate to post here to set the record straight. While we still disagree on your original vote, your subsequent actions have certainly restored my confidence in you.

Thank you for all of your hard work. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments. I also appreciate your hard work for and dedication to the project, regardless of any disagreements we have had (and may have in the future) regarding specific issues. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad activity status

I will be on jury duty for the next several days. (Lawyers are no longer automatically exempt in New York as they used to be.) It is possible this will be only for two or three days, though it could be longer in the event I am actually selected to serve on a trial. Since I will have to use my evenings to take care of some things I would normally handle during the daytime, I do not anticipate being very active on Wikipedia until my service is over. My apologies for any inconvenience this may cause. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually had the pleasure of participating on a civil jury in California where one of the jurors was a assistant district attorney from the neighboring city. As I recall, the lawyers discussed it for a while but neither side decided to challenge his participation. It was a little weird having him there. Dragons flight (talk) 03:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Jury duty is a rather terrible stub, if anyone reading this inclined to work on that. Dragons flight (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{sofixit}} :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saxbe fix FA and TFA

This user helped promote Saxbe fix to featured article status.

This user helped promote Saxbe fix to the main page as Today's Featured Article on 6 March 2009.

I am recognizing you for being one of the many people who came together to improve Saxbe fix as part of its development which has resulted in its WP:FA and WP:TFA status.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Although, for the record, my contribution was actually pretty much limited to some copyediting and citation-formatting after the article was already mainpaged. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benny Bell

Assuming you're not in the middle of your jury duty obligations, could you comment on something I posted at Luminifer's talk page regarding edits on the Benny Bell article? Thanks. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take another look at the article in a couple of days when the jury duty is over. Thanks. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-examination?

Hi Brad, you said you'd be posting questions to the WP:ARBMAC2 case once the case would open. I think we parties are now mostly done with the core evidence and the workshop is already near boil-over point, so if you could give some input helping things to focus would be good. Whenever you find some time... Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My jury duty service (see above on this page) ended late this afternoon, so I should be able to turn to this in the next day or so. The questions will probably be more useful now that they can be based on the evidence, in any event. Thanks for the reminder, and regards. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick apology

Hi - I just wanted to quickly apologise for seemingly reverting your edit a minute ago. Because of the line length, the "rollback" button had appeared directly over the "diff" button for a different edit on my watchlist, and it seems that my hand slipped when clicking the link. I fixed it, but it was a dumb mistake. - Bilby (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I understand completely, especially as I inadvertently did almost the same thing to someone else just a day or two ago. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for advice

Hi Brad. I understand that you are busy with many things, but was hoping that you'd have time to consider a request for advice. A few days ago we held a discussion regarding WP:RIP procedures.

Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians/Proposal to establish practices to be followed for deceased Wikipedians

The question of "closing" has yet to be resolved, although I doubt there would be any objections. I've noticed that you tend to be introspective, and respective of multiple view-points prior to making your very deliberate posts. In that regard, I was hoping that you'd be able to provide some suggestions on the steps that should be followed next. I had posted a request on the 'crat Notice board, but it seems to have gone largely unattended to, leading me to believe that I was looking in the wrong places. While consensus appears to be fairly clear in several items, and non-existent in others, Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Evaluating_the_consensus leads me to believe that it would be improper for me to make any determinations. While I have started a bulleted list in my user-space as far as a draft guideline proposal, I think it would not be proper to roll that out just yet, given that the discussion is still open. This is a rather unusual step in attempting to establish something that is technically outside our goals as an encyclopedic endeavor, so I'm as somewhat of a loss on how to proceed. I'll be traveling for a few weeks beginning the early part of next week, but would be grateful for any thoughts you may have on the matter (if you're so inclined). I've considered posting a request to WP:AN, and doing nothing at all. Being that your tenure here is much more extensive than mine, I am hoping you can offer some insight, and perhaps even a suggestion or two. Thanks Brad. — Ched : ? 21:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you just love being an arbitrator?

There is currently an explicit demand from Future Perfect at Sunrise that an administrator block Avg from further editing of the RfA pages, as can be seen here. I already told him that there are bloody few if any admins who have the guts to block someone who is actively taking part in an arbitration here. He continued to apparently insist here. Oh great and glorious one, you, as an arbitrator, might be able to resolve this matter, and I have a feeling you arbitrators might be the only ones who can. I'm not going to do anything about it myself, because I'm not sure I agree with Future Perfect and I doubt I have the guts to do anything anyway. You however are a different story. Maybe either placing the block yourself or leaving a message on the evidence talk page might be of some use. Thanks, and, believe me, I mean that. Better you than me. ;) John Carter (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left both Avg and Future Perfect this note. I am hoping this will calm things down for the time being. The talk pages of this case have been a hard to manage, but I am doing my best. KnightLago (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]