User talk:Newyorkbrad

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:

• 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)

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

Newbie question

Hi, I see you're doing the heavy lifting on the Request for Arbitration page, and I wanted to ask you a question that I can't find the answer to in any help page. I'll check here on your page for an answer; feel free to ignore if you are too busy. My question is whether the Arbitration Committee can find against any editor not listed as an Involved Party, or whether they are limited to those listed? What about when an editor removes themselves from the list? Secondly, should the person filing the complaint list themselves? Thank you, Jgui 22:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I don't know that I do any "heavy lifting," but I am one of the Arbitration Committee Clerks who assist with maintaining the pages, giving notices, etc., so this is as good a place is any to come with procedural questions.

The Arbitration Committee can make findings as to any editor. However, as a matter of fairness, if a finding is proposed against someone who is not a party, he or she should be notified and given an opportunity to respond. If it appears this has been inadvertently overlooked, please let me or the clerk for that case know so that a notice can be given.

It is up to the arbitrators, not individual editors, who are the parties to a case. If an editor removes himself or herself from the list of parties, but the case is not accepted for consideration anyway, it doesn't matter very much. If an editor removes himself or herself from the list and then the case is accepted, or does so after the case is accepted, it would be up to the arbitrators how to proceed. Sometimes filing parties do include all sorts of peripheral people in cases and it is appropriate to slim down the list of parties so the case becomes manageable.

An editor filing a case should list himself or herself as a party. The list of editors in the "involved parties" list has useful links to each party's talkpage, contributions, etc., and it is helpful to have the filing party at the top of that list.

Please advise if there is anything else on which I can help. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the super-speedy reply. I added myself to the involved party list. I may well be bugging you with more questions; thanks for helping. Jgui 16:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Another question: is it appropriate for a user to edit their statement on the RfA page to clarify or improve arguments, or is that frowned upon? Thank you, Jgui 15:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no specific rule on this so I would say that users may change or update their statements at any time. However, if it's a major change that would be confusing to people reading the page (for example, completely changing an argument that other parties have already replied to), then it might be better to do the updating as an addition to the statement rather than by editing the one that's already there. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 17:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion reviews

Thanks, I saw the message about Cbrown1023 being on vacation, but I wasn't sure how long he would be gone. So I just put the DR notice on there anyways.--milk the cows (Talk) 16:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, but you should give the notice to the other admins I mentioned also. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

POTW

He doesn't seem to get it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Brad, as an uninvolved admin, I implore you to consider blocking him, before you end up getting involved yourself. J Milburn 19:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Right after the final warning.. [1]. SirFozzie 22:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

ANI thread ongoing so I've posted there for consensus. Newyorkbrad 22:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zacheus-jkb

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zacheus-jkb. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zacheus-jkb/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zacheus-jkb/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 20:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: TingMing Ban

I have a question about the ban on TingMing: Is the ArbComm decision of the one-year ban effective immediately, as in the minimum of one-year starts when the decision was finalized, or does the one-year countdown begin whenever someone overturns the community ban? Nat Tang ^{talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me!} 04:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The one year started when the decision was issued today and runs concurrently with the indefinite block/community ban. However, if the user is caught evading the ban by sockpuppeting, the timer would be reset and the year would start over again. Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

RFAR/NYScholar

Rather than rail at Fred, want to endorse, or better yet, improve upon, my alternatives? I hereby give you full right to edit them to sound like they were written by a lawyer, rather than a mouse, should you so choose. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The wording of your proposals is fine (and I very much liked the "ears and whiskers" introduction). I haven't followed this particular case well enough to tailor the proposals to the specific facts, though, but I'll have another look in. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, took a look and offered my thoughts. Newyorkbrad 20:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou

Hi, thanks for the ArbCom advice. It doesn't take a genius to see that I don't have enough experience to bring an ArbCom case correctly! Much appreciated. Doctor11 19:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The formatting of the case is fine (we clerks always wind up doing some minor clean-up, it's part of the job). The more fundamental question will be whether this dispute is sufficiently serious to require ArbCom to get involved, and whether you have made sufficient efforts to explore earlier stages of dispute resolution first. Newyorkbrad 19:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing

Hello.
This isn't really about Pigsonthewing per se, but his userpage is what got me wondering the question: Does 3RR actually apply to userpages? If a person has limited ownership of their user/talk pages (at least, relative article pages), could 3RR actually apply?
For example, if someone posts on my talk page (even if it's just to say, "hello! welcome to wikipedia!"), I am allowed to remove it. If a person then decides to re-add it, am I not allowed to remove it as many times as I wish?
(Similarly, even though removing, instead of archiving, warnings is frowned upon, I still can remove them. If a person erroneously believes that I'm not allowed to remove them, and re-adds them, can I really be blocked for 3RR if I keep removing it?) Bladestorm 21:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The "exceptions" section to WP:3RR provides that the rule does not apply to "reverts done by a user within his or her own user space, provided that such reverts do not restore copyright violations, libelous material, WP:BLP violations, or other kinds of inappropriate content enumerated in this policy or elsewhere." As I read this, a user generally cannot commit a 3RR violation in his or her own userspace, unless there is an independent problem with the content of the edits. This is consistent with what I would consider to be common sense: a user has a greater degree of freedom on his or her userpage and talkpage than elsewhere, provided that he or she is not raising other problems such as by using the pages to perpetuate a dispute or engage in personal attacks. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 21:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"cannot commit a 3RR violation", in that he can't revert three times? Or in that it shouldn't be treated as a 3RR unless there's a special reason? Bladestorm 23:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but if you take a look at the page I cited, it is explained in more detail. Conduct on one's own userpage is generally exempt from 3RR, so cannot be a violation, unless it violates the policies in some other fashion. Newyorkbrad 23:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Gangsta review

Hi, I was advised to restate my evidence from my statement in the Evidence section. Do you feel this is necessary? --Ideogram 09:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say this is not necessary, particularly because in a review case, the statements and the evidence are on the same page. If you wish, you can add a one-sentence section to evidence, indicating that your evidence is contained in your statement above. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 10:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I need a favour....

Hey Newyorkbrad, sorry to bug you, but I couldn't find User:Beestra cause he's on a Wikibreak, so I coming to you for advice/ your knowledge of Wikipedia Policies. I was wondering....is this article section ([2]) a violation of Wikipedia policy? Nat Tang ^{talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me!} 12:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

or is it just a case of edit dispute and censorship... Nat Tang ^{talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me!} 12:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the background to this article, but the fact that a source in the form of the court document linked from the article is a good step toward complying with our policicies. However, this does not necessarily demonstrate that the incident in question is notable, so it might be desirable to add some secondary sources as well to suggest that the matter has been considered significant. Additionally, if a matter of this type is to be mentioned, it is important that it not be given undue weight relative to the subject's career taken as a whole. Editors on the BLP noticeboard who work with these issues frequently might be a good source for additional input, as well as of course discussion on the article talkpage. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 21:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom

This user (Zondi) has made several reverts in the course of his edits, exhibiting an identical POV as other users involved. This is why I added him. He has edit warred on several article, and made some interesting comments. He is very much a part of this case. Some of these articles include Church of Kish and Heroes of Azerbaijan. I'd appreciate it if you would re-add him. Thanks. Good night.Hajji Piruz 05:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If you have a good-faith belief that ArbCom action should be considered against this editor, then you can put him back as a party. Newyorkbrad 09:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for talking to me about this.Hajji Piruz 15:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Board Election

As I don't have an account over on meta, I thought I'd drop a note off here. I noticed that the endorsement period has closed, and I was wondering if there is a page where the overall success of the endorsements (ie. correct number) will be confirmed by the election committee. Or even just a notice somewhere saying when such a page would be expected to appear. At the moment, I'm shuttling between the candidates' presentation page and the endorsements page, and getting thoroughly confused. I presume when voting starts this will all be cleaned up, but I was hoping that there would be a simple "candidacy endorsement successful" notice somewhere, so that I could now just concentrate on those candidates and not the ones that weren't endorsed. Hope you can help! Thanks. Carcharoth 16:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple of places you can find the final list of qualified candidates who will be voted on; one is here. By Thursday the official voting instructions page will be up which of course will also have the official list. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Article needs protection

The article that i requesting protection is Sarah Natochenny because of the daily vandalism it's been receved latley and i was wandering if it is possible to if you can do it as if i understand right that only administrator's can only do it thanks Richardson j 01:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. Since there seems to be only one IP vandalizing the article, I think it would be better to block the IP if it keeps vandalizing, rather than protect the page. There had not been any warnings beyond test1, so I just issued a final warning, and you can report the IP to WP:AIV for blocking if it vandalizes again. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 02:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Some user pages I am thinking of nominating for deletion

I'd appreciate your advice on some Crystal Gayle Mangum related user pages. User:Unlearned hand has a couple of different versions of this article in his user space; back at the end of May, I suggested he either edit them to try to meet BLP and other Wikipedia editing standards, or have them deleted. I also said that I wouldn't hesitate to take them to MfD if he didn't do anything with them. Here are the links: [3] and [4].

Well, it's been nearly a month. Unlearned hand last edited on June 2, when he said he would sit on them for a week or two to decide his next steps. I don't want to kick up a sandstorm or fan any flames (to mix a few metaphors), but at the same time it's time these were gone. Any thoughts? Risker 02:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm ... you could try prodding them and see if anyone objects, as a first step? Newyorkbrad 02:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea; the last time I went through this, I knew the deletions would be controversial so went straight to MfD. Have put the prod tags on, and will see what happens. Thanks. Risker 02:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I go adios

Sorry but after 2 years, I'm voluntarily adios. The fact that you got involved in a conspiracy to place me under arbitration is the last straw. Therefore go to another editor if you want various articles to be edited. I don't have any time to waste with Wikipedia anymore. I leave Wikipedia with this one warning: there will be even more fragile editors like myself and soon there will be opposition to Wikipedia's oppresive rules that y'all will have to think things. I don't care about those articles anymore and nobody cared about my edits anyway. Sorry, but I'm voluntarily finished here. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 13:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)