User talk:Newyorkbrad

Today's Flare up

As a drafting arbiter on the climate change case, I would like to notify you of this.[1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser request

I am not sure if my sister has a Wikipedia account and I often edit from public places. If you are not to busy, I would like to have Checkuser run on my account and the results sent back to me that way I can properly link accounts from people in my household if need be. I just ran across the policy, while doing some browsing of the policies, and wanted to make sure I had all my bases covered. Thanks, Zell Faze (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Interim measure

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision#Interim restriction Polargeo (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Please act on this request for a motion. Or act on the proposed decision by posting it. It would be helpful. Participating in anything else while this is pending, and while you are the principal block to forward progress, is not. We are all volunteers but doing what you committed to do would be a good thing, I think. ++Lar: t/c 13:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I was consulting last night with the other drafters and good progress is being made, which should be reflected on-wiki soon. In the interim I will look at this motion now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 20:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You ought to look at the movement we've started here. Jehochman ^Talk 20:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Re-request a motion or some action. What exactly is the holdup? ++Lar: t/c 02:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I spent a couple more hours tonight going through evidence. Expect something to be posted this week. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

A LOT more evidence is piling up. If the proposed decision isn't broad enough there is going to be a strong request to reopen evidence... ++Lar: t/c 03:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I've circulated tonight a number of new proposals for my fellow drafters to review. Progress is coming. With regard to the lot more evidence, is this (in your view) cumulative or supplementary of matters already covered, or does it raise new issues and concerns? Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It would primarily add actors not previously mentioned, more so than adding new issues or concerns... the concerns remain the same, for the most part. ++Lar: t/c 10:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Just to note that yes, we're pretty close to having something up. There's a lot of evidence to take in, and Rlevse and I have also been keeping an eye on some of the peripheral battles going on here and there while the case has been ongoing to see if more needs to be added. Risker (talk) 05:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• There will always be supplementary evidence, but if Lar is referring to what I think he is then there is one user who is bringing up "new" issues that I doubt you are covering. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 11

Hey, just in case you missed it, there is an oppurtunity to get a free dinner this Tuesday August 11 and a chance to meet and hang out talk about Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy and WP:GLAM/SI. Sorry that this is so late in the game, I was hoping the e-mail would be a better form of contact for active members (if you want to get on the e-mail list send me an User e-mail ). Hope that you can attend, User:Sadads (talk)12:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

RFAR/CC

Hi Brad, any idea when there might be some movement on this case? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The drafters have made very material progress in collaborating toward the proposed decision; I can't assign a specific date at this point, but it should be sooner rather than later. As someone who has taken a bit of credit for some of the cases I've drafted moving relatively quickly, I regret very much that that hasn't been the situation here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it the intention of the Committee that there will be few material changes to the proposed decision after it's posted? I can't help but get the sense that the Committee is trying to decide as much a possible behind the scenes, and then we'll just blitz through a rubber-stamp vote. I've discussed elsewhere why this would be a bad idea; I hope that the Committee will be open to modifying the proposals in light of evidence submitted in response to the proposed decision. Remember, right now only the drafting Arbitrators have any clues about what the ArbCom thinks this case is about. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing particularly exciting going on behind the scenes, to be honest; just looking over one another's proposals and trying to improve them. And no, I don't anticipate unanimous arbitrator agreement on every aspect of the decision, though I'm not saying I would protest in the streets in the event it were to occur. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you voting on proposals or just discussing them? And is there any reason why any of this has to take place in a closed environment? Typically these kinds of things happen on the PD page where others can discuss the proposals, why is this case different? I think it's a bad idea for this process to take place out-of-sight of the participants. On the one hand, the arbs might believe that the closed session allows you to discuss proposals without an explosion of discussion; but on the other hand, I suspect the explosion will happen anyway, the day you post the decisions en masse -- and the PD page will be chaos with editors releasing weeks of bottled up frustration commenting on all proposals at once. Furthermore, there's bound to be an explosion of new evidence since (as TOAT points out) nobody but the drafters have any clue where this is going. If you executed this out in the open, gradually over the last few weeks, the responses would be more spread out and manageable, and aggressive clerking could be employed to reign in any bickering which invariably clutters up cases like this. I guess I don't see the rationale of debating privately. ATren (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)