User talk:Newyorkbrad

To keep conversations together, I will generally reply on this page to messages left here. If you would prefer that I reply on your talkpage or elsewhere, please feel free to let me know.

Welcome!

Hello, Newyorkbrad, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Karmafist 15:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion

Could you please offer a third opinion at User talk:U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.#RfA. (What do you think the minimal experiance one should have for an RfA?)--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 19:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, one's already been given.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 20:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that was easy. :) For what it's worth, I don't have a specific set of RfA standards, and like you I support far more candidates than I oppose; the edit count I look for is enough edits to lead me to believe that conferring adminship on this user at this time will be in the best interests of the project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I was recently thinking that I have never seen you oppose an RfA canadate. It caught my attention when you were neutral on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kelly Martin 2 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking. But we are both entitled to our votes(within reason), right?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 21:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever opposed a serious good-faith candidate. There have been times I've thought about doing so, but in those cases the RfA was already clearly failing so I decided there was no reason to pile on. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom process question

Hello Newyorkbrad:

I understand that if a case is send to ArbCom, there is a process to decide whether to consider the case.

If a case is "allegedly" sent to ArbCom, but does not appear in the ArbCom list, is there a way to find out the status?

I have in mind the case of Whig, who on his talk page notes that he has sent you an e-mail which you "may forward to the ArbCom".

I am interested in this matter, because I have followed Whig's problems in Homeopathy. Thank you, Wanderer57 (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Not knowing the ArbCom process but having worked in a bureaucracy, I realize that there may be a situation where you can answer my question, but cannot answer it "now".

Thank you for your post. Most arbitration cases cases are posted on a special page on the wiki itself, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. However, Whig was blocked from editing indefinitely, and therefore could not file the case on that page. Under these circumstances, there is provision for the user to file an appeal to the Arbitration Committee by e-mail to the Arbitration Committee's mailing list. As an Arbitration Committee Clerk, I can confirm that I received such a request from Whig and forwarded it to the committee for the arbitrators to consider. As yet, I have not been advised of any ruling on the appeal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk page disruption

It looks like this IP you blocked is now disrupting their talk page.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

But seeing that IP hasn't continued so far, I guess there wouldn't be any point in having the talk page protected. I guess the best thing to do at this point would be to apply WP:DENY.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I am stunned...

...and don't know quite how to react. Is this serious? Can I possibly A enough GF to deny that I'm being maliciously misrepresented as a bigot, and with no notice to my talkpage, in a forum I cannot be assumed to have read? I know it's funny, but it's also serious. Appreciate your perspective, and thank you for what insanely appears to have been a necessary clarification. sNkrSnee | t.p. 02:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: I am no longer stunned, and have responded here. sNkrSnee | t.p. 03:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

backwards

I've notified him. Sorry about that. It seems I was doing things backwards today for some reason. :) Mercury 04:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

I will!

L337p4wn (talk) 04:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Bold idea

Mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Armenia-Azerbaijan. :) -- Cat ^chi? 06:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Evidentiary procedures

Hi, I have just posted to

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Evidence

and given that you are an ArbCom clerk - but not on this case - I would appreciate any procedural advice you can offer. I am not sure how free the active clerk, Picaroon, is to do this. I'll drop him a note, too. Thanks, Jack Merridew 08:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

p.s. This took hours to put together! This alone is a great deterrent to getting anywhere near an Arbitration case. --Jack Merridew 08:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

On a quick review of your evidence presentation it appears to be in a reasonable form that should be accessible to the arbitrators, which is the primary goal, so I think you have done all right. My only advice at this point is to watchlist the case pages and, to the extent it becomes relevant, be prepared to respond to any evidence or proposals submitted by any of the other participants. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Brad. I've got those pages on my watchlist now and will try and keep-up with things there. I looked at another case and it seems that things get very busy after a while. Best, Jack Merridew 06:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Some cases get far, far busier and more contentious than others. Good luck in yours. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Revert

I thank you kindly good sir. :) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 15:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: ANI question

I have responded to your question on WP:AN/I. Thank you, Tiptoety (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw it. Thanks. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom table with portfolio links

Hello! As we did for last year's election, we are again compiling a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. This table contains a column "Portfolio" for links that display candidates' pertinent skills. I will be going through each candidate's statements and gradually populate the column, but this may take some time. Please feel free to add some links in the form [link|c] if you feel it shows conflict resolution skills, or [link|o] otherwise. It would also be helpful if you can check if the information about you is correct.

My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. I believe that conflict resolution skills are most pertinent to the position, but if you want to highlight other skills, please feel free to use a new letter and add it to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table#Columns of this table. — Sebastian 05:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)    (Please reply on this page. I'll be watching it for a while.)

I've been an Arbitration Committee Clerk since February 2007, so that should probably be included. My other qualifications probably come through better in my candidate statements and answers to questions rather than as entries on a chart. Thanks for your work on the table. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I added the letter "A" to reflect that fact for both you and Raul654. You still can provide other links, though, as Raul654 did. — Sebastian 17:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Just found this nice list in one of your answers, so that puts you on par with Raul.

In addition to my question Making ArbCom less complicated, I wanted to mention that I just talked with Shell Kinney about a summary table. It would be great if I could win your help for this, either in your function as a clerk or as an arbitrator. — Sebastian 18:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to a question from Risker

Note: Risker asked me a question on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Proposed decision#Protesting ban of Giano. My response to the question would be a long digression from that important thread, so I've elected to copy the question and response here on my talkpage.

Newyorkbrad, did you forward that email [from Durova concerning User:!!] to the Arbcom? I have a great deal of respect for you; if you elected not to forward it to Arbcom, I would very much like to know what your reasoning was. Risker (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not forward the e-mail to anyone. The chronology in brief, as I have explained elsewhere, is that when "Indefinite block of User:!!" came up on my watchlist, I posted on ANI asking for a further explanation of the block, because I had seen !! doing good work on WP:DYK and a quick scan of his contributions and talkpage reflected no problems. Durova then forwarded me the evidence e-mail. After a few minutes reviewing it, I wrote back to Durova stating that I believed the block was a serious misfire and should be reversed. (I reached this conclusion partly based on what I perceived as weakness of the evidence and reasoning, and partly based on speculation I had heard as to !!'s prior identity, although I could not be sure of that identity, had no confirmation of it, and certainly had no permission to disclose it.) Recall that Durova had posted that any appeal from the block must be considered only by the Arbitration Committee. I waited a few minutes for developments, and then posted on ANI that in lieu of my opening a formal arbitration case (a process that can take weeks), I would appreciate if one or more arbitrators could review the block and the evidence for it immediately. (There is related discussion of the reason I made this suggestion on my ArbCom candidate questions page.) My assumption was that this would happen and that in the course of that review, an arbitrator would request and obtain the evidence from Durova. This became moot when !!'s prior identity was confirmed a few minutes later and Durova reversed the block.

Once the block was lifted, I anticipated that further discussion would take place to address serious concerns that had been raised by the block and the blocking admin's declining to support it on-wiki (although I will confess that I did not anticipate the level of turmoil that this ill-founded block and related matters have caused). In the ensuing hours and days, a couple of people requested copies of the e-mail, but I replied that I did not have permission to forward the e-mail to anyone and that such requests should be directed to Durova as its author and sender. None of the requests for copies of the e-mail came from arbitrators, and I frankly would have assumed that by this point the arbitrators had a copy of what soon became known to have originated as a mailing list post by Durova, or at a minimum could obtain it from her upon request, given that Durova remained accessible and was responding in multiple forums to questions about the block and her activities and had offered to share the evidence with administrators.

I hope this is the information you were looking for. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Brad. It appears that just about everyone made the logical assumption that Arbcom was "in the loop" based on Durova's first two posts, and it was only with Paul August's post that it became clear that Arbcom had not been informed. Indeed, there is some question in my mind if Durova ever sent the post to them. Sorry not to have scrambled over here to post the question myself, I had been advised you were offline so thought there was no rush. Risker (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd thought I was going to sleep, but I figured I'd check my watch list one last time, and there your question was, begging for an answer.... Newyorkbrad (talk)

You've got company

Check out near the top of my talk page to see what I mean : ) - jc37 04:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you help?

Hi, I'd like to ask if you could step into a little situation I have here. It's been some months since I was last on Wikipedia and some things have changed around, so I don't know where and how to report this. I have a problem with a disruptive and uncivil editor who is harassing me with links to defamatory sites. After I removed a partisan and original research external link from the links section of Sathya Sai Baba, Kkrystian promptly began a mini-edit war which continued even after I explained to him on his talk page why said link was inadmissible. He continued to re-add this link but has stopped now as another editor has stepped in to seek consensus. If you ask me, there is no consensus to be sought since this issue was discussed at ArbCom and all editors agreed to leave it out do to its violation of WP:OR, WP:EL, and possibly more.

However, on a related article (Sai Baba of Shirdi, Kkrystian has been removing reliably sourced information because he does not agree with it, stating that the words "violent" and "uncouth" is the author's POV and thus inadmissible. You can familiarise yourself with that discussion here and here. As Kkrystian has declared on his userpage that he is a devotee of Sathya Sai Baba (and by extension, Shirdi Sai Baba) in his real life, there may be conflict-of-interest issues here. Either way, it seems that editors generally agree that reliably-sourced references should not be removed. Kkrystian had been engaging in an edit war over that issue and was blocked for 24-hours over 3RR by yourself here. He refused to discuss the issue on his talk-page or on the article talk-page until after his block, preferring to explain his actions in edit summaries. But it appears that he hasn't learnt much from his 3RR block because he has begun indulging in personal attacks on me over at Talk:Sathya Sai Baba by way of posting URLS that happen to be defamatory against me and which include my surname in the URL title, as well as insinuating that I have ulterior motives for removing a link that is violating WP:EL and contributes nothing to the article.

After I informed Kkrystian on his talk page that he shouldn't be indulging in personal attacks here and that he shouldn't be revealing other people's personal information (even indirectly) here, he simply told me to "get lost". I even tried to refactor the discussion as per WP:RPA#External_links and WP:LINKLOVE here, but I noticed just now that he has restored this link here that is defamatory against me and which includes my surname in the URL title. He is clearly uncivil, personally attacking me in a hostile way, revealing my personal information, and harassing me without any provocation. Do you think that this issue could be treated with a block that I think, by all accounts, is well-deserved?

I left Wikipedia for several months because of all these harassment issues and, after feeling ready to return in the last few days or so, did not think I would have to face these types of unprovoked attacks so soon. Please help out, thanks. - Ekantik ^talk 16:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Just by way of giving an update, it appears that after another editor tried to refactor the discussion whis displayed that defamatory link, Kkrystian reverted it back. I have also discovered that at Talk:Sai Baba of Shirdi he displays the same pattern of disruptive editing and removing reliably-sourced information simply because he does not like it. This is a clear case of tendentious editing I believe. Thanks, Ekantik ^talk 16:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I can try to take a look at this but due to real-life busy-ness cannot get to it right away. Please post to WP:ANI to request quicker attention to your concerns. Newyorkbrad 16:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello Newyorkbrad! Today I completed my second month on Wikipedia. I am enjoying my time here. I hope you are doing well. Regards, Masterpiece2000 12:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment

Dear Newyorkbrad, Thank you for supporting in my recent RfA. Words nor pictures can express my heartfelt appreciation at the confidence the community has shown me. I am both heartened and humbled by this confidence. I will carry the lessons learned from the constructive criticism I have received with me as I edit Wikipedia, and heed those lessons. Special thanks to Pedro and Henrik as nominators. Special thanks to Rudget who wanted to. A very special thanks to Moonriddengirl for her eloquence. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 16:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

Since I have practically been living at Arbcom (gallows humor), would it be possible for me to volunteer as a clerk's assistant? I am becoming very familiar with procedures and this activity might help keep me out of trouble (more gallows humor). - Jehochman ^Talk 04:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)