User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2014/Dec

Not-so-smart phones

I noted your mis-click, and wonder if it might be the same thing I've done a couple times now. I recently mitigated this with this change which hides the rollback link on my phone. It doesn't remove twinkle rollback links (twinkle unfortunately doesn't use css), but so far it has kept me from the occasional frantic self-revert. Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 07:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will take a look at this. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to say....

I absolutely love the wording of your Oppose for Eric's ban. Especially the My wikiheart says that there must be a way to save the participation of this editor part. We need more thinking like this in the community, not just from Arbs. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

RFC regarding what is a reliable secondary source for articles on Buddhism

Hello Brad. If you are interested, I would appreciate your insights regarding this RFC to clarify what constitutes a reliable secondary source for articles on Buddhism: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism

The specific question is: should writers have a Western academic degree to be considered a reliable secondary source?

Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. The subject-matter isn't one of my fields, but I will take a look, and will chime in if I have anything to add to what's already been said. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Neotarf

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Newyorkbrad, the only info Neotarf provided was taken either from English Wikipedia or from gmane.org.wikimedia.mediawiki.bugs. According to Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation: "It's complicated. While gmane.org does not belong to us, it is a mirror of a mailing list and/or bug reports that are hosted on systems that do belong to us." So, if the site belongs to WMF why Neotarf is blocked for outing? Thanks.218.206.83.89 (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to discuss this here, except to note that the block is mooted by the siteban remedy voted in the arbitration case. I was recused in voting on that remedy, so I'm not the right person to either credit or blame for it, but I doubt very much that any arbitrator will be willing to discuss the matter on-wiki. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Come on, after all the fun you've no doubt had through the GGTF, are you really sure you want to retire from ArbCom? :) Thanks again for all the years of work, and particularly the work on this really contentious case. John Carter (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

As a general clarification, is the exemption from outing restricted to information only posted on en.wiki, or generally any of the wikis/commons/etc? Gaijin42 (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

As a general clarification, it's a good idea not to repeat any personal information unless it's crystal clear that the user meant to publish it on en-wiki, and that it wasn't just an accidental slip. It's not okay to dig for bits of identity to dox a Wikipedia editor. If somebody self-identifies on their user page, fine. Otherwise, respect their privacy. Jehochman ^Talk 19:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:Outing says: "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia". As you see it does specifically indicates en-wiki, could be any wiki I guess. Also how you could be so sure that it wasn't just an accidental slip? I'm sure that, if there was outing, and it is a big "if", it was just a mistake. In any case there was no reason to remove the user talk page access at the time of the block. 218.60.56.95 (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not entirely sure the quotation provided does specifically support the contention that the revelation must be made on the English wikipedia, as opposed to some other wikipedia which might also be broadly counted as "Wikipedia." There might also be some question, I suppose, on posting such information on any other WMF site, which might perhaps broadly be counted as "Wikipedia". I'm not sure myself how exactly the interpretation of that policy has gone, but some clarification one way or another on the relevant page might be useful. John Carter (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

There is non-public information involved in this discussion and it should not be continued. In any event, as noted above, it certainly should not be continued with me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arbcom

Hi Nybrad. I've been busy in RL and only just noticed you're dropping out of arbcom at the end of the year. I don't always agree with you but your thoughtful, "what's best for Wikipedia" approach to arb cases will be sorely missed. Hope you stick around and don't just drift off like so many other good editors have done. --regentspark (comment) 11:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. --GRuban (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both very much for the kind words. I do intend to stick around Wikipedia for years to come, although I will be spending more of my wikitime on article-writing. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Repeat thanksgiving. It crossed my mind today that the better I feel represented by an arb, the shorter that one's service in the position (28bytes, Floquenbeam), but you are exceptional ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Wait; you like 28bytes better than me? Harrumph. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I seem to have another language problem, "feel represented" and "like" is not quite the same to me. 28bytes was the first admin whose RfA I supported, so the first I asked in need (and he helped), - I just know him longer and found him disappointing only when he left, do you understand? Life is not fair, ask Thomas.W --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

No language problem, I was just teasing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It was the edit summary - so much hurts here that I didn't know how to take it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

While I'm here, thirded. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I was third --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

No, because you indented wrong, so I get third. You can still have "fourthed" if you hurry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the time stamp of thanksgiving, I was kind of zero ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

seventh. — Ched :  ?  18:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Can I be fifth? Or at least have one?  :) [1] Dreadstar ☥ 23:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I won't take a number, but I will just thank Newyorkbrad for his many years of exceptional service to Wikipedia, and I know he will continue to serve the community in other (though lower-profile) ways. Maybe he will have time to resurrect the moribund Parliamentary Procedure Wikiproject. (I sure haven't had the time.) Neutron (talk) 23:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll entertain a motion to do that.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to focus on article writing, please be careful. I hear the ArbCom doesn't take kindly to that kind of thing. Everyking (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll take my chances. Always good to hear from you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I hope article writing will give you a better perspective on the reality of editing. This is not a kind and forgiving place, and the ArbCom has played a very large part in making it that way, and leaving our community in the doldrums. Everyking (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It might be overwhelming to re-join the ranks of the article writers at first. I mean, nearly 5M articles, where to start? You get used to it after a while, well, kinda, I'm still trying to figure out what article to write next sometimes. Still, arb-retirement is a nice thing. Wizardman 05:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Since @Ched: took "Seventhed", am I "eightedededed?" or what's the term I'm looking for here @Floquenbeam and Floq:? Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 16:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, you have a few days where you could still mess it up but even if you do, you deserve much thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Newyorkbrad/Archive/2014. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Kurtis ^(talk) 08:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Eric enigma

I cannot understand why he is still prepared after all this time to engage in easily avoided conduct that upsets colleagues and massively distracts from the principal goal. I literally do not understand it, and in fact, as I approach the end of my seventh and final year on this Committee, I do not believe I have ever understood the reasons for any editor's behavior less well. Well I don't have answer for you, just idea to consider, that the way you express the enigma may contain small fallacies (that results in enigma), one namely, that "Eric's conduct", and "upsetness"/"distraction" from others, are one thing. They're separate, not joined as if mandated or necessity. People choose what they get upset over, or what they allow to distract themselves. (Eric doesn't decide for them.) I think that might be at the heart of your conundrum. (The way to "fix" the expression is to break the connection, replacing "that upsets" and "[that] massively distracts", with "that has a probability to upset" and "[that] has a probability to massively distract", given the environment on WP.)

p.s. That said, three additional:

1) I don't speak for Eric of course and the most accurate/best way to understand is simply to ask Eric! (Perhaps he is/has been sphinx-like on it though.)

2) Eric is quite brilliant, extremely talented with words, meanings, shades. Words are tools/medium to convey fact, fancy, idea, feeling. Although I think that Eric is scrupulously logical, he's really in the end an artist. So going back to your conumdrum, why he is still prepared after all this time to engage in easily avoided conduct, perhaps Eric is more complex than you allow for. (For e.g., perhaps Eric is not only keen observer but interested in human behavior [he did major in psychology, didn't he?]. Perhaps he says things that he knows has probability to incite, but for a careful reader, there's nothing personal existing, so many times, interpretation of personal insult, though common and popular to do, is really then a measure of the receiver's behavior -- nothing Eric made or created. [Think "science experiment", where there are controls, to allow results to surface. That's consistent with idea Eric is logical as part of everything else. {What else? Again, maybe Eric is simply curious about people, and the WP environment is a perfect "science lab" in a way. Perhaps when Eric says something objectively inert that has probability to incite, it is out of curiosity to "see what" individuals concerned are about -- what they're "made of" so to speak. In a way, with the vast collection of people here, with only typewritten words as interface unless attendees to Wiki conferences, seeing how people choose to respond to things is so revealing re the responders, it may be a temptation that a brilliant & curious mind like Eric's, likes not to resist when an opportunity arises in context.}])

Another possible small fallacy, is your use of word "colleagues" as though binary -- either colleague, or not. While in any large social environment there will be different relationships dependent on different levels of respect earned or shattered. IMO, Eric never prejudges and defaults as open to collaborating with any & all editors (the WP ideal; which explains why Eric is so positive with newbies and anyone asking sincerely for help) until having some reason why not (reasonable pragmatism for anyone to have; I've noticed even that Eric takes a huge measure of abuse from anyone before finally and rarely asking them to not post to his Talk). If any of this is true, what makes it all more complex and obscured is the fact that Eric has faced nearly a constant parade of antagonizers/attackers/baiters (for whatever their varied unclean reasons -- e.g. jealously, vanity, chance for personal infamy) whom nearly all other editors don't have to face. Yet Eric always quickly resumes his primary task of writing the encyclopedia.

3) I'm not a psychologist of course. Speaking of, however, one thing absolutely lacking on the WP, which IMO would help enormously re tolerance & understanding between editors, would be an awareness of Myers-Briggs personality types (especially the four temperaments NF, NT, SJ, SP). (All the personlaity types are valid -- none is inferior to another -- but understanding & appreciating a different type from one's own is challenging to do, sometimes seemingly impossible. But it is the only intelligent answer. ["Which rules you more: a) your head, b) your heart." There's no wrong answer. Each person will have a preference. IMO the T/F personality attribute is at the basis of the never-ending "What is more important? -- article quality or a civil environment" debate. Unless it will be clarified as defined WP objective, both answers are right, neither is wrong, the strife will be permanent -- that conflict will never find a consensus.])

Sincerely submitted, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

This is an interesting analysis (although some paragraph breaks would have made it easier to read). However, I think we may collectively be overintellectualizing something that is relatively simple. An earlier incarnation of ArbCom used to adopt this one-sentence principle: "Editors are expected to reasonably courteous to each other." As I wrote on the proposed decision talkpage, we can sometimes disagree about boundaries and also about consequences (cf. In re Snyder), but the basic idea is really quite clear. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

OK (I made some paragraph breaks). But, it seems clear now based on your response, I've misinterpreted your statement (green-quoted text). (I took it as genuine long-term puzzlement, but now I see it was rhetorical instead -- more of a frustrated command to Eric [e.g. "I just don't get it why he doesn't put his behavior in line, when the rules are simple enough, and consistent with his interest to help build the encyclopedia."]) Even so, I think the two fallacies I discussed above still apply. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It's perfectly possible to get on with Eric - one just has to agree with everything he says. 194.150.177.10 (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

To my experience it's much simpler: treat him with respect. I don't agree with him on many topics: the value of DYK, infoboxes, certain editors, ... - but he has always been gentle to me. See also Peace. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

With Eric, it is best to focus on the forest rather than on the trees. The trees are a f**k here and a c**t there. The forest is a slew of excellent articles that have enriched Wikipedia far beyond what 99% of us can claim to have done. --regentspark (comment) 11:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you see, arb whom I trust to know legal language, that Eric was asked to prevent Anne Frank from being relisted as FA, and responded that he can't comment because she was a woman. I noticed before that arbitration restriction enforcers don't care if an edit improves Wikipedia. What would you advise him to do, help to rescue the article or stay safe with the letter of the restriction in mind? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the risk is too high, especially given the ardor of some of Eric's eagle-eyed detractors. This is very unfortunate, and perhaps there will be a time when this can be re-considered and changed, but now is probably not that moment. Eric should finally be able to edit in peace again, and the only way I see that happening is by erring on the side of caution. :-( ---Sluzzelin talk 15:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

(outdent) Sorry, I just noticed this last post. As I wrote on Eric Corbett's talkpage, the idea that the recently adopted remedy affects his ability to edit an article like Anne Frank is completely absurd. I would prefer that it not be given further credence. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

It is absurd, but my experience is that you have to expect absurdity from what is called arbitration. I was labelled an infobox warrior and restricted to two comments per discussion. Others can freely place "idiot" at the beginning of a discussion (after reverting an IP acting in good faith and possibly knowing nothing about the sacredness of featured articles) and then say "drive the conversation into the gutter of insults" when someone (not I) mentions that ownership comes to mind. - I told Eric to stick to a male horse, that is safe ;) - I voted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

It certainly does seem absurd that the restriction would be interpreted in that way, but experience shows that on Wikipedia, the most sweeping and severe interpretation of a rule is normally the one that will prevail. It's the "meanest kid on the playground" principle, and we sure do have some mean kids on our playground. No matter how good your rulings might be (not to say I think they are any good), if your enforcement mechanism involves letting the big kids beat the snot out of the little kids, it's not going to achieve a very good result. Everyking (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

End-of-the-year meetups

Hello,

You're invited to the end-of-the-year meetup at Busboys and Poets on Sunday, December 14 at 6 PM. There is Wi-Fi, so bring your computer if you want!

You are also invited to our WikiSalon on Thursday, December 18 at 7 PM.

Hope to see you at our upcoming events!

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 02:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, can't make these dates. Hope to see everyone in the new year. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Sanction Appeal

Per your comment on GamerGate sanction appeals: "If an editor who was sanctioned wants to make the case that the sanction applied to him or her was unjustified or disproportionate, he or she may do so" -- I'd like to make this case. Should I add a section for myself to the to the arbitration request evidence page? --Cobbsaladin (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hi and thank you for your welcome message last night. I am totally new to all this so need a bit of guidance. I don't want to make a load of mistakes and get banned while I'm learning the ropes lol. I tried to create an article but only got as far as the draft stage. Have I tried to run before I can walk I wonder? Many thanks, Danny.

Huddsblue (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Newyorkbrad/Archive/2014. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Resolution

Dear Newyorkbrad, please see this polite request, and provide a positive thoughtful response there, if you have one. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC).

Article-writing

Hello, Newyorkbrad. You have new messages at Bwrs's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

typo in arbitration comment?

At the civility enforcement amendment request you wrote "[...] not at all intended to lock in the then- or non-current RfA system" in your point 2. I think you might have meant "now-current" rather than "non-current"? Thryduulf (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Correct. Fixing. I hope this year the community elected arbitrators who can type. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Typing qualifications are the least of my concerns ;) - After two years of asking the arb candidates to look at an edit by Andy which some arbs and enforcers didn't understand, I hope for a break. I started the year, getting back from a freeze after 28bytes left, to write an article because someone died, and just wrote the last article of 2014, again because someone died, - hope for a break there as well. Peace is on the German Main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

In respect of the conduct during arbitration cases proposal at the Gamergate workshop, you also said "This principal is sound and is plainly applicable here." For a moment, I wasn't sure if that was principally different to what you intended. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I must have needed coffee. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Don't take this the wrong way, but after your having spent several years being an arbitrator, somehow, coffee isn't the drink I would have expected you to say you might have needed. John Carter (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I need coffee before typing on the arbitration pages. You are quite right that a different drink might be in order afterwards. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

And thank you for fixing my spelling - for some reason I always think "incoming" should have two "m"s! Thryduulf (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

In case of interest, peace and joy is now on this Main page, not my Christmas message yet (will be posted on my user pages, don't expect individual greetings, as much as I admire the ones I received), but good for edit summaries, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Bonne nouvelle année Happy new year

Thank you, Brad, for all the thoughtful work you have done for this project. Given that your ArbCom term ends December 31, I truly wish you a Happy New Year in 2015. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, best wishes and thank you for your work and the time you have put in (though I still don't understand where you found all that time in the first place). Assuming you aren't interested in AE (heh), maybe you would be able to help in other areas of the project...such as checkuser work? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• I think everyone understands the need to move on after giving years to ArbCom, but it won't be the same. I think you have often been the voice of reason, the mature adult, that Wiki editors looked to when all else failed. Good luck, thank you and Happy Holidays! Dave Dial (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. My plans for the wikifuture don't include checkuser, which I never had much technical skill at and which I will be giving up (along with oversight) on December 31. My overall goal is to spend much more of my wikitime writing and editing articles, which after all is why I came to Wikipedia once upon a time in the first place. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

That's understandable I guess. BTW, I thought your comments at the latest PD were admirable and even if he's not going to be in the mindspace to appreciate, it really was very nice. The ultimate unfortunate outcome was essential in the end, but I guess it's sad that it happened just before Christmas. Still, at least you are one step closer to your arbitrator retirement, and maybe more articles relating to the law (among other things) will be created and improved by you after another week; I do look forward to that at least. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Russavia

Hiya

The user that uploaded this image to Commons, from what I can find out they are banned from this Wikipedia, however not banned from Commons or any other Wikipedias.

To me, that would seem to be the editors whole purpose at the moment. Would ANI on this Wikipedia be the best place to raise this?--5 albert square (talk) 13:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)What? There is nothing to discuss on Enwiki's AN/I, the editor is already banned on this project. If you have issues with Russavia's behaviour on other projects, then discuss it on those projects. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Ears burning

You're being mentioned in User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 180#Apologizes. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 14:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

That was a Russavia sock. Predictable and boring. Jehochman ^Talk 16:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

an article

If you want to get back to ordinary editing, there's a draft in need of learned assistance at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co. DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look and probably do some editing, though perhaps not until after the first of the year. (I have to admit that maybe I don't understand exactly how the AfC process works. If that article had been created in mainspace, it would not have been an exemplary article, but it wouldn't have been speedied or anything either. Are the standards much higher for passing a draft from AfC into mainspace?) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

the declared standard is that it is likely to survive AfD, not merely speedy. In practice, most reviewers use a standard that first, it will not even be questioned at AfD, and second, that it is not significantly deficient in any key element (as this arguably is for context). It is furthermore possible for any autoconfirmed editor to move an article to mainspace regardless of criteria, and this frequently does happen both to irrational idiosyncratic declines on one hand , and to correctly declined promotional articles on the other. There is also a desire to get the author to fix an low quality article first, but the rate of this happening is rather low. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a friendly talk page stalker-at-law here. I probably understand the AFC process less well than NYB does, but... doesn't a "live" version of this article already exist? See Adickes v. S.H. Kress Co. It looks like it was moved from AFC-space in either January or February 2014, but the edit history is a little confusing on that point. (At least to me.) Neutron (talk) 05:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

NYB and @DGG: I looked at the "live" version of the article and it is woefully deficient. I added some pertinent facts from the decision so that a reader might actually know how the case originated, which I think is kind of significant. (I remember this case from law school as the "segregated lunch counter case"; I had forgotten about the summary judgment aspect.) Anyway, the article still needs a lot of work. I am not sure where that leaves what is at AFC. Neutron (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I hope to get to this and put some work in on it after the 1st. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Neutron As for the AfC, there is no fixed practice. If it appears the afcwas used as the base for the mainspace article, we usually redirect the arc to the article talk p. as we would if it were accepted normally. In this case, looking at the version it is a complete and improved rewrite, so we normally simply delete the afc under G as "already in main space" or "now in main space" . No one seems to have challenged these procedures yet, or the various expedients that have been used to get around the manifold defects in the arc process. (The ideal course, of improving afc processes, appears unfeasible--at least, it appears unfeasible to me, after several years trying.) DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

We regret to inform you..

That the "WikiCabal that really runs Wikipedia" (TM, Patent Pending) has decided that your escape from the ArbCom will be disallowed, as you are too wise to actually be allowed to stop serving, and as such, has created the new position of Permanent Arbitrator, which you have been forcibly appointed to. The good news is, that it comes with a salary bonus of 50% more JimboBucks in your secret Wiki Swiss Bank Account. Use your position well, Permanent Arbitrator!

(In all seriousness, which is a change for me these days, congrats on a job well done and here's hoping you enjoy your retirement at least as much as you did serving. That's a low bar, I admit) SirFozzie (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Just curious. I looked at the wall of proposals at the Gamergate proposed decision page. I think I counted at least 22 different people making proposals, sometimes in the number of dozens of proposals per person. Do you retiring arbitrators have the chance to, basically, run away from that case at the end of the year, which I would try to do in the same position, or are you more or less honor bound to wade through that morass of type until the final decision is made? John Carter (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

We have the option. If a case had just opened within the past week or two, I wouldn't stay active on it. However, the GamerGate case started some time ago and I've already spent time reviewing evidence and commenting on the workshop, so it makes sense for me to finish it out (although I won't be one of the drafters). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Newyorkbrad!

Happy New Year!

Newyorkbrad,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Atsme☯^Consult 13:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year

Congratulations on a fine six year stint on Arbcom. I may not have agreed with every action, but all in all you have been the embodiment of rationality and clear thought. I believe you've mentioned in passing an interest in debriefing about your time on the committee after your term is over. If you are at all serious about that, I'd be happy to do an interview with you for the front page blog of Wikipediocracy, the content of which can be ported over to Wikipedia. Probably best done in writing if you are interested, just so everything is clear and precise. I'm at ShoeHutch@gmail.com and there is no rush — any time in January or February works. All the best, —Tim Davenport /// Carrite (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Although my arbitrator term expires tonight, I will continue as an active arbitrator on the GamerGate case (since I've already invested a fair amount of time on it at the evidence-workshop stage), so will finish that up before doing a debriefing or two. After that, first dibs on whatever interview or story they might want to do should go to the "Signpost", or perhaps any successor that might exist to "Not the Wikipedia Weekly." As for an interview with the Wikipediocrats, I'm open to it, though I would probably want whatever I said to be published in its entirety. Otherwise, I have no doubt that if I (hypothetically) wrote "97% of English Wikipedia's 4.5 million articles are good," someone would try to recast that as "Newyorkbrad denounces 135,000 shitty Wikipedia articles." There would also need to be an understanding that there are still some things I can't comment on, and that I'm not especially looking to rehash the merits of every vote I cast over the past seven years that disappointed a Wikipediocracy member. In any event, let's circle back to this in a few weeks. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)