User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2019/Jul
 | 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. |
Signpost
I think the most pertinent issue here was that ANI refused to do anything about it and as it stood, it was a trainwreck, and waiting for the Arbcom to do anything about it is like watching paint dry, so while every single logged in user was being directed to it by the message at the top of their screens, it was a complete disaster. Picking and choosing what to redact wasn't going to happen in a timely fashion so Jehochman's move was absolutely bang on the money. If Arbcom deem it to be a suitable oeuvre, it can be republished in whatever form in due course. When it was deleted, it was just basically tabloid bullshit. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. My comment wasn't meant to address the past 24-48 hours so much as took for a better path forward. Despite, or perhaps because of, my time on ArbCom, I've learned that some situations best dealt with without publicizing and talking about them for a month. This might be one of those. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps. But having said that, the fact that all logged in users were directed to the Signpost article meant that, in its initially published form, quick action needed to be taken. For me it was just a simple case of not publicising to the whole of Wikipedia's logged in editors an article which was clearly inappropriate. Not talking about it today would have meant it just remained there and advertised to all logged in editors. Now it's been deleted, a case to work out Signpost's remit seems perfectly apt. Cheers, have a good afternoon. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- It looks like the case is headed toward acceptance, unless some sort of consensus can be reached in the meantime. A good afternoon, actually a good evening, to you too. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps. But having said that, the fact that all logged in users were directed to the Signpost article meant that, in its initially published form, quick action needed to be taken. For me it was just a simple case of not publicising to the whole of Wikipedia's logged in editors an article which was clearly inappropriate. Not talking about it today would have meant it just remained there and advertised to all logged in editors. Now it's been deleted, a case to work out Signpost's remit seems perfectly apt. Cheers, have a good afternoon. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate...
...the integrity and level-headedness you've been displaying, but then I would have expected nothing less from you (while you, no doubt, would have expected no less from me than what I'm doing). Humorous redirects I don't really care about actually, but supervotes in the middle of active discussions? Yeah, that I care about. The whole place seems to be going to hell all of a sudden. I'm truly surprised at Ivanvector in particular. EEng 22:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
More records
Following on from your observations on the most number of statements on a request, there are currently 120+37+61 = 218 statements at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case at one time (permalink). Probably more to come. Not sure how many distinct editors among all that. Possibly another record, though more difficult to check. I do recall times when that page was busier when there were lots of requests open at the same time, and some on related topics, but nothing quite like this (maybe at the time of the BLP cases?). Carcharoth (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- As Mendaliv put it: WP:FRAMBANNEDSANFRANDAMNEDARBCOMJAMMED EEng 18:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- I don't have any more statistics beyond those I already shared. I never kept records of this sort of thing; I just happened to remember having previously observed in a prior case that we were up to more than 100 statements, and I was able to quickly track down what case that was. (Ironically, it was the "Civility enforcement" case.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Sunday July 14: Annual NYC Wiki-Picnic @ Roosevelt Island
| July 14, 2-7pm: Annual NYC Wiki-Picnic @ Roosevelt Island | |
|---|---|
   You are invited to join us at the "picnic anyone can edit" in the lovely Southpoint Park on Roosevelt Island, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck. This year the Wiknic will double as a "Strategy Salon" (more information at Wiknic page), using open space technology to address major questions facing our social movement.
Celebrate our 13th year of wiki-picnics! We hope to see you there! Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Wikimedia New York City Team 21:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC) | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
Thanks for linking El C
I missed that in my links. Buffs (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Sigh
Every time I see you display your humorous side I'm reminded of another RfA post you made years ago, and then I've got that 7 song earworm again. But then maybe I'm just Floqed up in the head. — Ched : ? — 01:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)