User talk:Newyorkbrad

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

tasting blood[edit]

See ArbCom even though you assiduously avoid it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The case against me is vexatious indeed - I shall not contend against those who taste blood. The main complaint even includes my essays - so I wrote one which I hope you will appreciate WP:Wikipedia and shipwrights. It would be fun to see how others react, indeed. Warm regards, Collect (talk) 04:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I will take a look at this when I have more time (see below). I will share my thoughts then if I have any useful thoughts to share that wouldn't be repetitive of what others have said. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

A superfluously sesquipedalian title which shall immediately betray the author's deluded pretensions to effectual elocution[edit]

Rather than make do with the patented 'On _____'--or simply '_____', as it were, I've elected to use this title, instead. I feel it suits me. Polysyllables aside, let's talk business:

You see, I'm somewhat....curious, I suppose. As you may recall, in an action which still, to this day, baffles me, you opted to opine regarding the severity of the punishment I was receiving due to my.....policy contraventions, we'll put it. As aforementioned, I am confused by this. We don't even know each other. I understand that you're an administrator, but there were already several on the case already. Moreover, your requests weren't exactly heeded--I am still under the trammel of an indefinite topic ban upon any and all subjects related to gamergate. Nothing really became of your efforts.

I write this, then, in the hopes that you may answer my questions, and, in so doing, dispel my befuddlement. Good day. Ghost Lourde (talk) 09:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ghost Lourde:First off, apologies for the short delay in my response. I've been mostly offline for a few days (see above).
Personally, I like the parodic writing style in your section header. You may not be aware of it, but inadvertently or otherwise, you were aping a writing style I've been accused of (cf. User:Newyorkbrad/Bradspeak).
As for why I addressed the arbitration enforcement thread concerning you, there were two main reasons. The first is that I was one of the members of the Arbitration Committee who was active in the GamerGate arbitration decision. (I was an arbitrator from 2008 to 2014, and continued into January on the GamerGate case since it opened in 2014.) This gave me a great deal of background on the GamerGate-related editing disputes, and therefore I've commented on some (though by no means all) GamerGate-related enforcement requests.
In that context, I saw the enforcement request against you and, as I always do when I am thinking of commenting or taking admin action involving an editor with whom I'm unfamiliar, I took a look at your userpage and talkpage to see what the editor has chosen to share concerning his or her background and editing interests. As you intended it, your userpage is very descriptive and very introspective. I thought it gave me some insight into why you might be editing the way you were and what advice might be most helpful to you. Every editor is a unique individual and should be treated as such, but after nine years on Wikipedia I have come to recognize certain types of frequently committed "rookie mistakes."
Of course, I didn't realize as I was typing my advice to you that another administrator was in the process of topic-banning you, thus rendering moot the advice I was giving. But I hope it was useful to you anyway. And I hope this reply is responsive to the question you asked me. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Well, yes, you have satisfied my curiosity. Also, yes, the parody *was* inadvertent--it was more of a self-parody, really. Anyway, thank you for responding. Ghost Lourde (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


You win. Dreadstar 20:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't win anything. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps I need to clarify. I have always held you to be one of the finest, but this shows me you are either biased or didn't take the time to understand what you did. I told you that I only supported unprotection if the edit warriors trying to add the disputed hidden text would be blocked if they continued.[1] Yet you unprotected and let them edit war to re-add the disputed text. Ergo, you wanted the hidden text, else you would have acted on it when they edit warred to re-add it. So you win, the hidden text is back. Dreadstar 16:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I didn't, and don't, care much about the hidden text. I just didn't, and don't, like the idea of an FA being full-protected for a week based on a dispute about hidden text. Hopefully a consensus can be reached about the existence and content of the hidden text, or any other open issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
@Dreadstar: OK, so you're saying you were expecting Newyorkbrad to block an editor who re-adds the text. But were you expecting him to leave an editor who re-removed the text unblocked or were you expecting Newyorkbrad to block that editor too? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC) I've just realised he's blocked himself so I won't expect a reply yet. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, while I understand your thinking, I might have left a picture of another large fish here...but I can't seem to find the last one I had left here. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for input. For what it's worth, I still think I did the right thing, for the reasons I have stated here and on the arbitration page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I must confess I thought you would. I think it's partially subject to interpretation of the FA criterion on stability; it could be argued that content is not significantly being changed each day (as it is about hidden text) so protection is really not a good way of sorting it out, but it could also be argued that the article is subject to ongoing edit wars and is therefore not stable, so a short term protection may not be such a bad thing.
In the end, it is a pity that a contributor was clearly in burnout (especially in recent weeks), and as he didn't take up a voluntary break for a relatively long short term, spiraled even more. The consequent outcome was inevitable. I'm not sure what efforts were made to counsel him or how many people sincerely attempted to get through to him before it reached this point, but I suspect a long-term loss which could have been avoided here. The drama escalation which followed this mess was probably avoidable (if not simply unnecessary) too, but seems to be an increasingly common feature at In that sense and in such situations, I do sometimes wonder whether the project is actually gaining, or whether it is losing more. I am sure you would have thought at some point (or still think) about that too. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

History DYK[edit]

Did you know that Laurence Olivier had an undisputed infobox from 25 May 2006 until 14 January 2015? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

ps: I didn't see the above when I wrote this. Had added a black and white image to my talk before, having written Martin Petzoldt (around the time of his memorial service, as I later found out) and nominated Maria Radner. RIP --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I would rather not discuss anything about infoboxes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
A simple yes or no would have been shorter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration request concerning you[edit]

Please see WP:A/R/C. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I've read the case request and posted my statement. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined[edit]

Hi Newyorkbrad, the Arbitration Committee has declined the Infoboxes II arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 06:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions[edit]

Isn't it usual to at least let a person know they are in danger of discretaionary sanctions? I don't recall ever being pointed to that by anyone. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The entire situation is unusual from beginning to end. However, I will agree to lift the formal sanction if you abide by the guidance I have provided. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Spell out what you want? I don't mean that bad I just want to have a clear understanding what you want me to agree to? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Why don't you just step away from this whole situation and leave it to others to deal with. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

NYB, if you choose not to lift the formal sanction, please remember to list it at WP:DSLOG. Thanks Thryduulf (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

With "Saint Kohser" now blocked and all his edits having been reviewed, the sanction is probably moot. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Everyone says this is common sense. To me it's anything but, I don't just go pushing buttons on a screen, i consider things carefully. If this is what you described in your statement by the fact we must allow Saint Kosher to continue editing I agree with that being the purpose. I however think that if he is willing to say he vandalized an article what is to stop him from vandalizing as Saint Kohser? I then further thought about possibly reverting vandalism removal and I thought to myself that vandalism isn't something new to the encyclopedia and we manage to find it and remove it without the help of banned users. What my method does is expose them for what they are, a vandal. Why allow them the chance to damage things further by leaving things open? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

You know ... when I say something, and another person disagrees with me, I often think I am still right. When I say something and everyone disagrees with me, I consider that I may very well be wrong. At the moment, as far as I can tell, everyone is disagreeing with you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok So I am wrong, I'm ok with that but if we have rules we should follow them. If it's ok for one banned user to come back the others should have the same opportunity too. We all bend over for consensus and if that it is the consensus they can come back if they are making good edits then there we go. No one including me has that problem, it should be formalized. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
You continue not to understand. In any event, I see that "Saint Kohser" has now been blocked by ArbCom. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Which was all I asked for in the first place. I do not completely understand you are right. I'm stating that outright that I do not understand the difference. Seriously enlighten me what I was missing and what you would like. I know you don't like me, I don't particularly care but like it or not I do have to deal with you. You are stating there is a problem and you want me to refrain from certain behaviors, tell me what those are so I can agree and you can hold the noose or I can disagree and you can still hold the noose. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Let me give you a hypothetical example. Suppose someone goes to John Smith's BLP article and inserts "John Smith likes to kick puppies." This statement is unsourced and in fact is a falsehood; John Smith has never kicked a puppy and in fact is chairman of the local ASPCA. A known banned user reverts the edit. Would you put "John Smith likes to kick puppies" back in the article? Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
No, I would not, honestly though I look a lot of the time and if I see a source I assume good faith it's actually there. It's one of the few things I almost always agf about. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy that you're still here[edit]

...And you edit without the fez on! Regards, Novickas (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)