User talk:Newyorkbrad

A bold proposal

In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I created a new page. My intention is to dissociate from anything that could be interpreted as a criticism of ArbCom, and just focus on trying to make Wikipedia better. I hope you can look at it and see if you can help make it work: Wikipedia: Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 14:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for creating this page and also for notifying me. I have watchlisted the page and will be keeping a close eye. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo Arbcom request

Hello Newyorkbrad,

In previous RFAR's I have noted you say that in a close vote on whether to accept a case you would choose to accept, citing a desire not to be the one to get in the way of acceptance. As of this posting, it sits at 6-3 with you having a comment instead of a vote. This means that a vote of yay or nay from you can literally decide whether the case is heard. Assuming the side situations that would preclude a case fail (such as the idea of a motion or outside mediation) would this mean you would end up accepting? 198.161.174.222 (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to try resolving this with a motion in the first instance. Based on the most recent posts, it appears this situation may actually be closer to resolution than it might otherwise look. (I'd hoped to have the motion posted by now, but the Geogre matter has taken up my arb time for the past couple of days.) I won't have to address your issue unless the motion solution doesn't pan out, and so I haven't really thought about it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Geogre Motion 4

Hi, would you please consider, provided you haven't already, my proposed motion 4? You seem anxious to get this case over with, that is understandable, but let's not allow the cost of haste to be injustice to one of Wikipedia's most venerable and best writers. Thank you,--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. However, as you will have seen, a majority of the committee has already decided to proceed with the other motions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, justice delayed is injustice denied.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Limited availability note

I will have limited time availability for Wikipedia matters until the end of next week. This reflects some real-life work and family commitments and not any other considerations.

As a general matter, in the upcoming months I also hope to be spending a much greater percentage of my wiki-time working on content creation, although I will remain attentive to my arbitrator responsibilities. Last night I worked on my first article in far too many months, and it's about time, and I want to resume doing more of that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Question about date delinking amendment (5)

Hi, I hope you're doing well. In the proposed amendment to reduce the remedy concerning John to an admonishment from a restriction, your initial comments indicated that not only would you agree to removing John's restriction, you would also bring forth another motion that might have broader ramnifications with regard to the parties of the arbitration case. Later, you said that you wanted to wait until what would now be early last week for someone who wanted participate in the discussion, but a week has passed since that "deadline", and I don't see any significant new comments made by a member of ArbCom (other than votes). Finally, in a more recent comment from three days ago, you said that although you had been caught up with other things, and that you would offer additional comments/motions "tomorrow" (now two days ago, July 28). I know that you've had numerous more important real-life and wiki obligations, but if I could know roughly when (if at all) you plan to follow up with these comments/motions, that would be great. Thanks for all you've been doing. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I am recused, but I think I can still do math. There are 12 active arbs, 2 are recused, 5 have supported, and 6 is a majority, so if you either recused or supported, the motion on the table would pass. MBisanz ^talk 14:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

(e.c. with Matt) Brad, Dabomb alerted me to his post here. Opinion has been expressed by Kirill and I recall one other arb that three months (and on another occasion, after the date-delinking bot has done its job – expected early September) might be a good time to review the whole matter, at the same time as the ArbCom review of the stability of MoS is to be conducted (by a Remedy whose number I can't remember). As RexxS has pointed out, the steam seems to have dissipated from the matter, and the decisive community approval for the running of the bot has surely further settled the matter and moved us further from the frayed emotions and difficult landscape that gave rise to the case in the first place. (While the absence of one party may be partly responsible for the calm, I think we've all learnt the value of civility from the case.)

On top of this is the feeling among parties I know that the editorial restrictions placed on them are not in proportion to the need to protect the project from disruption, either in scope or extent. I think this is a matter you yourself have commented on.

I know that ArbCom's wheels move slowly, since it's so clogged with high-pressure work; but I add my voice to Dabomb's—it would be great for us to move on from the case over the next few months. Tony (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Given continued incivility, here and elsewhere, for sure expect evidence to be submitted in opposition, Tony. ArbCom restricted you, inter alia, for incivility, after all.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This is still pending and I'm aware it's a priority. I have been trying to figure out an approach that would amerliorate the collateral effects of the sanctions without reopening the entire set of disputes, which I think everyone can agree would not be desirable. I hope to be posting something shortly, and I'm sorry about the delay, but I think we can agree it would be best to move toward resolution rather than another meltdown. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

To MBisanz: I've already supported the motion re User:John. Is there another pending motion I've somehow missed? Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, I lost your sig from the line wrapping due to your long, wordy, comment. MBisanz ^talk 15:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Two lines of text is not wordy. Certainly not for me it isn't. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, thank you for your prompt response. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I am glad that John's case is being reviewed, but remain concerned that there seems to be no action on the amendment to revisit the sanctions on HJensen for his 'crimes' during the date-linking saga. Thanks for your attention. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As you have probably seen, I have now posted a motion that would narrow the remedies against several users. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Brad, I've now realised that your motion would further restrict me, in the opposite direction to the others. I am currently unrestricted WRT contributing to date un/linking issue on the project; the motion would ban me from such contributions. I do find it odd that a remedy is being made more severe for one party at this stage, and less severe for all other parties. Tony (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I beg your pardon?

You have "removed the userbox" because it is "defamatory" and violates your "policy on living people"? I don't believe it does. It includes the word "believes". It is not put forwards as a fact. It is a statement of belief. If I had one saying "I believe x is not guilty", would that be defamatory? If the x in question was someone who was currently serving time for a crime? Or vice versa? What if I had a "I believe OJ Simpson did it"? It's a statement of belief, and I don't think that counts as being defamatory. I am going to replace the userbox. If you still have a problem with it, I would appreciate it if you would discuss it with me rather than just remove the box. Thank you. Thalweg & Nimbus (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A statement of belief may be considered defamatory (in the layman's, not the lawyer's, sense) if there is no reasonable basis for the belief. Userspace on Wikipedia, including userboxes (whether created as linked templates or directly on a page via coding) are not the appropriate forum for posting novel, and in this case virtually delusional, allegations that an individual was involved in a shocking crime. Do not reinstate this or any similar material. If you have a problem with my action, you may raise it on the administrators' noticeboard so that other people's views can be sought; please provide me with a link here if you do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States FA-drive

Sorry for spamming you, but in light of the impending shift of the Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States, I'd like to get this article up to FA status within the next few weeks, and ready for the front page by the time the Court starts its fall term. Any help or advice you can provide would be appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll be glad to pitch in on this once I'm available again (see below). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI...

DC 8 (talk)

--NBahn (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum

Hi Newyorkbrad,

I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in United States legal articles to take a look at WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".

Our mission is to assimilate into Wikipedia all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.

• Each casebook will have a subpage.

• Over the course of a semester, each subpage will shift its focus to track the unfolding curriculum(s) for classes using that casebook around the country.
• It will also feature an extensive, hyperlinked "index" or "outline" to that casebook, pointing to pages, headers, or {{anchors}} in Wikipedia (example).
• Individual law schools can freely adapt our casebook outlines to the idiosyncratic curriculum devised by each individual professor.

• I'm encouraging law students around the country to create local chapters of the club I'm starting at my own law school, "Student WP:Hornbook Editors". Using WP:Hornbook as our headquarters, we're hoping to create a study group so inclusive that nobody will dare not join.

What you can do now:

1. Add WP:Hornbook to your watchlist, {{User Hornbook}} to your userpage, and ~~~~ to Wikipedia:Hornbook/participants.

2. If you're a law student,

• Email http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Hornbook to your classmates, and tell them to do the same.
• Contact me directly via talk page or email about coordinating a chapter of "Student WP:Hornbook Editors" at your own school.

(You don't have to start the club, or even be involved in it; just help direct me to someone who might.)

3. Introduce yourself to me. Law editors on Wikipedia are a scarce commodity. Do knock on my talk page if there's an article you'd like help on.

Regards, Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 04:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'll take a look at this when I'm available again in a couple of days (see below). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Availability note

I'll be 99% offline until Thursday evening or Friday morning. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)