User talk:Newyorkbrad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

cloud cuckoo land[edit]

Please read Template talk:Infobox officeholder and the interesting claim that an RfC which was closed as failing due to "strong arguments" actually passed, and that it immediately negated the prior RfC which fixed the weird "successor not a successor by any stretch of the imagination" close, resulting in the proposer "unclosing" the RfC and ruling the prior RfC as voided. The proposer also asked for the close to be overturned, which I found a tad "out of process" here. See also [1].

Is cloud cuckoo land here? Collect (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Reading through those discussions is making my head hurt. I promised myself this year that I would at least take a few months off from hurting my head on Wikipedia. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I asked Guy whether Kraxler's edit on Rangel was what he expected an editor to do as a result of his close where he noted strong arguments against the proposal, and danged if reading the proposal says "this voids the prior RfC" in any way <g>/

Then K posts:[2]:

I know you don't want me posting here. And I usually wouldn't. But blind-reverting with a wrong rationale is not something I can let pass. I don't claim anywhere at Charles B. Rangel that the previous consensus was voided. My edit does not implement the previous before the previous consensus, but follows explicitly the instructions by Guy in his closing rationale. Which you opposed to have amended. SSo, now cool down and sit on it for a while, I would say a week of discussion on the talk page is appropriate. Anymore reverts, and ANI will have a thread about somebody who does not respect a closing rationale by an uninvolved admin. It's always in order to discuss, but not to act contrary to, consensus

Where he says he follows what Guy explicitly told him to do (?) and that my revert to the SQA could be reported to AN/I! Please tell me what the heck is happening on Wikipedia - it took ages to get the first RfC done to make some sense in infoboxes, and now the new "result" would look like hell (IMO). Cheers and apologies.

By the way -- without even waiting a second to see what Guy says see [3] where Kraxler is blatantly edit warring and asserting as a "god-function"

this was done according to the expressly stated instructions in the closing rationale, one more revert and the thing goes to ANI, directly

Is this the act of a competent administrator at this point? (Rhetorical question and not a personal attack) Collect (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

(Talkpage watcher sticking my oar in)Collect, I think what NYB is politely hinting at above is that, having stepped down from ArbCom, he'd like to take a break from dispute resolution (or indeed, dispute reading) for a while. I'm sure you'll agree that he's entitled to such a break after his long service. If you think there needs to be extra uninvolved admin eyes on the dispute you're referring to, why not raise at WP:ANI and see who volunteers to help? WJBscribe (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I know - and I also know some admins watchlist this page (actually more than apparently look at AN/I AFAICT) - so I do not feel extremely guilty. I long ago swore off the drama boards as an OP -- but you might have fun reading AN/I lately, indeed. Cheers to all. Collect (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


I asked that partly because of [[4]]. I didn'yt ask with no evidence I asked based on prior history and the admission already of a sitting arb. Sorry that disturbed you and feel free to revert if you don't care. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Noted. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


Coffee has email enabled, so you could email him if there are specific revisions he'd like rev-del'd. NE Ent 00:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I've already dropped him an e-mail, although not on this specific matter. If he indicates anything in a response, I will forward it to you. My sincere hope is that he returns shortly and makes it clear here what he thinks should best be done. John Carter (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll probably drop him a note too. For what it's worth, I still think the question I posed to Kww should have been asked of Coffee before the talkpage was undeleted. I suppose I won't actually do it, but part of me thinks I should redelete the talkpage now until I hear back from him—partly on the chance there should be revisions-deletions, and partly to see if it would even be possible to turn this weekend's drama-level up from 11 to 12 or 13. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
No, you shouldn't; it's highly unlikely that was anything other than a lashing out in frustration. I'm pretty sure the drama has peaked based on some heuristics I've developed from reading too many ANI threads. NE Ent 02:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Editing for Women's History in March[edit]


I am very excited to announce this month’s events, focused on Women’s History Month:

  • Sunday, March 8: Women in the Arts 2015 Edit-a-thon – 10 AM to 4 PM
    Women in the Arts and ArtAndFeminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at the National Museum of Women in the Arts. Free coffee and lunch served!
    More informationRSVP on Meetup
  • Wednesday, March 11: March WikiSalon – 7 PM to 9 PM
    An evening gathering with free-flowing conversation and free pizza.
    More informationRSVP on Meetup (or just show up!)
  • Friday, March 13: NIH Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon – 9 AM to 4 PM
    In honor of Women’s History Month, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is organizing and hosting an edit-a-thon to improve coverage of women in science in Wikipedia. Free coffee and lunch served!
    More informationRSVP on Meetup
  • Saturday, March 21: Women in STEM Edit-a-Thon at DCPL – 12 PM
    Celebrate Women's History Month by building, editing, and expanding articles about women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields during DC Public Library's first full-day edit-a-thon.
    More informationRSVP on Meetup
  • Friday, March 27: She Blinded Me with Science, Part III – 10 AM to 4 PM
    Smithsonian Institution Archives Groundbreaking Women in Science Wikipedia Edit-a-thon. Free lunch courtesy of Wikimedia DC!
    More informationRSVP on Meetup
  • Saturday, March 28: March Dinner Meetup – 6 PM
    Dinner and drinks with your fellow Wikipedians!
    More informationRSVP on Meetup

Hope you can make it to an event! If you have any questions or require any special accommodations, please let me know.


James Hare

To unsubscribe from this newsletter, remove your name from this list. 02:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a heads up[edit]

I have notified Rationalobserver about the talk on User talk:Anthonyhcole's page, I understand there are wiki politics but discussing a possible sock investigation which is a serious thing without informing the editor involved is just wrong in my opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Your point is well-taken. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)