User talk:Newyorkbrad: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:22, 7 June 2007

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 5 days are automatically archived to User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2024/Aug. Archives prior to May 2007 were compiled by Werdnabot/Shadowbot3 and can be found at User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive1 (prior to October 27, 2006); User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive2 (from October 27 to December 19, 2006); User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive3 (from December 19, 2006 to January 29, 2007); User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive4 (from January 29 to February 27, 2006); and User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive5 (from February 28 to May 10, 2007). Sections without timestamps are not archived.

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.

Please note

I am currently serving as a member of the committee supervising the voting procedures for the upcoming Wikimedia Board of Trustees election. This will consume a significant amount of my Wikitime and therefore I may be somewhat less active on the English Wikipedia for a few weeks until the election is over. Thank you to everyone for understanding.

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:

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)[reply]

Hey

Kevin mills has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

You are so nice.

My RFA

You supported my candidacy in my recently completed request for adminship. The debated ended 40/4/1 and I'm now an administrator. I'd just like to say thanks for taking the time to consider me, and thanks for the confidence in me. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified.

Regards, WilyD

O Wise AC Clerk

Please tell me what to do next regarding this. - Aksi_great (talk) 05:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there. Brad is apparently too busy trying to get his swelled head unstuck from his hat to answer. Thatcher131 06:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Another Wise Clerk to the rescue. - Aksi_great (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this [1] I have posted something more. Please look. Pwang 19:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. It is unusual for a new editor's first edit to be to an arbitration page. In any event, the arbitrators can investigate the information presented. Newyorkbrad 19:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heaping Praise

Hi,

Having just read through your remarks at the Hornbeck/Ownby DRV (I try to stay miles from BLP disputes for now), I must say they are thoughtful, convincing, and frankly brilliant. You epitomize the ideal dispassionate administrator, and I sincerely hope that we are all fortunate enough to have you settle every controversial question on the wiki henceforward. You might be able to bring peace to the Middle East, for heaven's sake! :) Best wishes, Xoloz 16:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that NYB has been a welcome voice of calm and reason in these debates. One item I must confess I don't understand, however: Why do some feel that, for a crime victim who has chosen to tell his story in numerous media outlets, set up a charitable foundation, etc., in order to help future victims in similar circumstances, the most sensitive option is to redirect his name to the article about his kidnapper? I suppose it'll be interesting to hear the Foundation's stance on this issue. For the time being, would it be appropriate to add [2] as an external link in the Devlin article? JavaTenor 16:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly have no objection, although ultimately that's a matter for the editors on that article. Note also the closing administrator's observation on the DRV that the DRV does not (nor did my deletion) forecloses our ever having an article on Shawn or his foundation, though we certainly shouldn't have one like we had before. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Ultimately, I think the best state of affairs would be to redirect Hornbeck's name to an article about the foundation, which appears to be a notable and worthwhile endeavor. Such an article could contain information about his and his family's efforts to tell his story since his recovery, without providing a home for the inappropriate content which appears to have been in the previous article. Once emotions have calmed a bit on this issue, I may be bold and work on that. JavaTenor 01:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh. Looks I can't claim I had the idea first! :-) Anyway, it's done now. See Shawn Hornbeck. Carcharoth 22:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Devlin

As someone who has contributed to this article I would like to know which of the following is going to be permitted and the rationale for such: 1. The names of the two victims are to be censored from the article and any links or references or 2. the names of the victims are not barred from the article or 3. The names are barred from the article but permitted (with photos) on all links and references.John celona 21:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a matter for consensus of the editors working on the article. I have expressed my opinion but it is not binding on anyone else. Newyorkbrad 22:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Can you delete User talk:Richardson j/Reply Requestplease thanksRichardson j 14:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. If this comes up in the future on a page in your userspace you can just tag it {{db-author}} and someone will take care of it. Not that I wasn't honored to be selected to perform this deletion.

) Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anyway .:) User talk:Richardson j

CC MfD

Would this be acceptable to you? -- Ned Scott 00:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably have been acceptable to avoid the extended argument at DRV, but now that the DRV is over, changing the MfD description would probably cause more fuss than just leaving it alone. Can't we just drop this already, there being 1,800,000 more important pages for you to worry about? I am sorry that I ever heard of the matter. Newyorkbrad 00:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I asked you about it a few days back and you never responded. -- Ned Scott 00:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but it's noting what was discussed on the DRV, which would make sense for it to be added after the DRV was closed. -- Ned Scott 00:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your question to me but then I saw that in the MfD you had written that even if I agreed to make the change, others would still insist on a relisting anyway, so the solution wouldn't work. I still think changing the MfD would cause a new fuss now; however, you can make a note with a link to our discussion on the MfD talkpage if you wish. Newyorkbrad 00:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accurately reflecting what happened would be more important than any hissy fit that Cat might throw. I've moved the note out of the boxed area, and have dated it to avoid confusion. -- Ned Scott 00:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of principle, I've always been surprised that DRV results are not noted over on the preceding XfD debate. It can be confusing arriving at an old AfD debate, seeing a keep verdict, and seeing a red-link where the page was. Sometimes you go looking for a later XfD debate, before thinking to go looking for a DRV result, though the DRV should be mentioned in the deletion log if you are lucky. Anyway, I used to try adding little tips like that to various processes, but lots of helpful stuff gets removed as "instruction creep". Hmm. Carcharoth 21:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had the same thoughts, actually. Newyorkbrad 22:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage revert

Treat 'em like water off a duck's back mate. If the ip's in question had any value to add to the encyclopedia, they'd be adding it. Keep it up :) -- Longhair\^talk 00:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banned user using sock puppet

Hi Newyorkbrad,

Venki123 (talk · contribs) was banned [3] by the arbitration committee for a perod of 1 year. Now he is back using many sock puppets one of which has been confirmed as Sriramwins (talk · contribs). Please see the checkuser result: [4]. Could you ban this user and the related ips? Thanks. Xylophonic 03:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the registered socks were already blocked when the checkuser was done. (You can check any editor's block status by clicking on "user contributions" and then clicking on "block log.") I don't see any recent activity by the IP's listed in the checkuser report. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Darwinek block

I saw your msg on his userpage. I support his unblock; he was adding fair use rationale and restoring images (ex. here he adds "No free equivalent available, low logo resolution."). The rationale may be disputed, but to block the 24 most active contributor to this project for reverting a bot is quite disruptive.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's been unblocked now, appears to be resolved. Thanks for the note. Newyorkbrad 20:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Testing waters

I made a list of points at WP:RFAR/Bdj/Evidence that I sort of hope could be the start of a more specific policy as to deleting articles based on WP:BLP. I wonder if I can get your opinion on them, as a "moderate", before putting them where people like Doc Glasgow or Badlydrawnjeff who seem to be more "extreme" on the scale will take them apart, and all my female ancestors besides. Is this a useful start, at least? Anything we can do to make this end constructively, and not just with a "A cautioned, B blocked, everybody else keep fighting"? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read your statement when you posted it and found it constructive, although I didn't agree with how you classified all of the specifics. I just reread it again and found some useful principles in there. My remarks (under the heading "Additional comments and introspection by the deleting admin" or something like that) in the Hornbeck/Ownby DRV, which you may have read, represent my own latest thinking on all of this. I will provide further input on some of these issues within the next few days, although of course all of this is treading close to either "content issue" or "policy issue" which the arbitrators might (or might not) choose to stay away from in any event. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IRC cloak request

I am Newyorkbrad on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/Newyorkbrad. Thanks. --Newyorkbrad 23:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A recently-discovered masterpiece!

Hi, I saw Jimbo's edit to Talk:Elizabeth Smart. That led me here and that led me here. I seem to have missed it at the time, but I just want to say I think it's absolutely spot on, and extremely well expressed. Thank you. ElinorD (talk) 01:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

alternate

I proposed an alternate 18.1 to Nikosilver's rationale. It says the same thing, that it was overly harsh, but it takes out the statements that allege I claimed that he had been blocked 7 times for 3RR (which I simply did not say). I do not like being misquoted for the purpose of a finding of fact. Am I wrong here?⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't remember every word that was written on that Sunday afternoon almost a month ago, but have you considered posting to Nikosilver's talk and indicating that you believe the post contains an error and could he check his facts? Hopefully at that point either he would add a diff, or realize he can't find one and rephrase his proposal. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gracenotes story

Would "by the community" at the of the sentence be better? Also, you should give thanks to Ral315 for rewriting the story (this is my first story)! Sr 13 03:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe something like "there was disagreement on how to proceed" or "there was disagreement on whether consensus for promotion had been reached"? (Yes, I recognize the irony of discussing whether there was a consensus on whether there was a consensus; compare infinite regress.) Newyorkbrad 03:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Koavf case

Hi NYB. Though i am neither for letting this user edit freely here nor leaving the community ban status-quo, i just want to inform you that i am a bit skeptical. I've just come accross the following edits today:

Listing WS as part of MENA, while the MENA website itself doesn't do that.
Most of the edits are OR ( Please not that many sources will use the term "Western Sahara" to refer to the government the "Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic", just as "France" refers to "French Republic".) --> No source is given while he talks about many.

Well, i am really busy and can't follow his edits w/ scrunity. I just don't see any change in his behaviour and going thru RfC and then ArbCom would be really a tiring process again. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user is on a one-revert parole. If he violates the restrictions, he may be blocked, and after three blocks the block length can escalate to as much as one year. Hopefully this will not be necessary, but we will see. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Koavf for more discussion, and please note that I was not one of the decision-makers in this matter, just clerk who notified the user of the decision. Regards, Newyorkbrad 13:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Hornbeck Foundation - reasonable article?

I've started following the BDJ arbitration case, and I've also read your mini-essays at various points on the issues, where you specifically mention the Hornbeck/Ownby case. I wondered what you think of my proposal (via an editprotect request) to redirect Shawn Hornbeck to the article Shawn Hornbeck Foundation that I created, and the article itself (a very modest start)? Carcharoth 14:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to give this some more thought, but am inclined to agree with your suggestion. I would have preferred to see Ben Ownby deleted outright, but perhaps that should link to Shawn Hornbeck Foundation as well. For my extensive thoughts on Hornbeck/Ownby, please see the Wikipedia:Deletion review log for May 28, the entry for Shawn Hornbeck and Ben Ownby, if you haven't already, especially my (over)long comments about halfway down the page (under the heading "further comments and introspection by the deleting administrator"). Regards, Newyorkbrad 14:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think if there is enough independent information to write an encyclopedia article on the foundation (their budget, activities, etc) then it makes sense to briefly report its history as well. I'm not sure there is enough information at this point (I wonder if it will even exist in another year) but this seems a reasonable start for now. Thatcher131 14:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The foundation in and of itself would be of perhaps borderline notability, but we have editors strongly contending that the boys' names are staying in the article on the criminal, and the DRV was closed as redirect, so having a reasonable article on the Foundation may be the best outcome to this whole affair. Newyorkbrad 15:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An update on this. See [5], which details an old plea from the police for not publishing leaked and incorrect information. Sub judice and all that. Carcharoth 14:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR Hkelkar—is there anybody there?

Hey, Brad, it looks like you're clerking the Hkelkar RFAR. One of the involved parties asked me to comment, so I put a note on the proposed decision talkpage, and a link to it on the Workshop, but it feels rather like I might have saved myself the trouble. Do you have any alternative page to suggest, that's not so much like shouting into a black hole? Bishonen | talk 19:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

There's no better place within the case pages, but I would not be surprised if the arbitrators who have voted have moved on by now. You may want to call attention to it on some arbitrators' talk pages or email one and ask that they send it to the list. It looks like FloNight is about to rebel against the general amnesty, so she might be a good starting point. Thatcher131 19:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Thatcher, your best bet at this point is probably an e-mail to the arbitrators' mailing list. You can send an e-mail to any active arb or to one of us clerks for forwarding. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bleh

I'm an idiot. orz Thanks for catching that. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 02:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the "l" in second position in both names that confused you. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your note, redacting etc

I'm not persuaded that persons having an official position are entitled to the kind of concealment you are promoting.

The Admin in question has made no effort to obscure their identity - at least not to me, and eMails FROM an official, in furtherance of the project, would not seem to be priviledged in any way.

Moreover, that Official CHANGED the name of a prior case from the article in question to MY REAL NAME. I took the same kind of offense which you are taking now - but was overruled etc... So I am taken now by the double standard - but I expect that. A Double Standard is human nature and would explain my experiences. I am prepared to be impressed by fairness and equality, and a single standard. I can't say I expect it. Benjamin Gatti 03:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish these materials to be considered by the Arbitration Committee, you may send an e-mail to any active arbitrator (list at WP:AC) or arbitration clerk who will forward it to the Arbitration Committee's mailing list. You may indicate in your statement on WP:RfAr that you have sent such e-mail. I am not familiar with the prior incident you describe. Newyorkbrad 04:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of citing a policy to substantiate the unilateral deletion of pertainent information? I have read that email were published in an Arbcom previously. But I think the onus is on the moving party to present a Policy. Benjamin Gatti 05:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Among other places, there was strong consensus among arbitrators and users in the pending Hkelkar 2 case that posting e-mails without the consent of the sender is inappropriate. (The only point of disagreement was whether posting should require consent of the sender and the recipient, or just the sender.) The impropriety of your action in posting the e-mails was compounded very seriously when you included the sender's real name, e-mail headers, and e-mail address in your posting, even after having already been reverted once by another administrator and admonished not to do this. I am a clerk of the Arbitration Committee responsible for keeping good order on the RfAr pages and these practices will not be tolerated. Newyorkbrad 05:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Deeceevoice Seems to have involved at least some eMail - but I'm not sure of any policy either way. Benjamin Gatti 05:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an old issue. Ben titled it Price-Anderson. I switched it to his name because that is his user name and the case was about him, not the act itself. He attempted to change it back several times. But the ArbCom took it under his name. Because. It was about his behavior. Not about the article. Whether I changed it or not is really immaterial. If you look at his ArbCom case, Kelly Martin nominated it as being under his name and James F. seconded it. If they had decided that it was unfair or unjust to make it under his name, they wouldn't have changed it. And Ben made a motion on the workshop page and again, it was rejected. I'm tired of being "the bad guy" when the final call wasn't mine. I'm not a member of the ArbCom. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request to reverse redaction

NYB, I have requested and received permission from WH for the emails to be posted. WH is willing to accept responsibility for his intemperance - just as he has been active is holding others responsible for theirs. I would ask you to confirm with WH this permission, and then to reverse your redaction. Much appreciated, Benjamin Gatti 15:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had requested that the material be Oversighted, so I do not believe it is technically possible for me to reverse the redaction even if I wanted to. The best procedure is still to send the material to the arbitrators privately, as you have done.

Frankly, with 5 arbitrators opining that they do not wish to hear the case, I believe you should drop the matter and that you and WH should simply avoid each other in the future. Regards Newyorkbrad 18:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunately WH appears intent on being involved on any topic I edit regardless of topic. Benjamin Gatti 23:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 181: / Line 181: @@
 :I had requested that the material be Oversighted, so I do not believe it is technically possible for me to reverse the redaction even if I wanted to. The best procedure is still to send the material to the arbitrators privately, as you have done.
 :Frankly, with 5 arbitrators opining that they do not wish to hear the case, I believe you should drop the matter and that you and WH should simply avoid each other in the future. Regards [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 18:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
+::unfortunately WH appears intent on being involved on any topic I edit regardless of topic. [[User:Benjamin Gatti|Benjamin Gatti]] 23:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)