User talk:Newyorkbrad

Wikimania 2012 bid, DC chapter & next meetup!

1. At WikiXDC in January, User:Harej proposed that DC submit a bid to host Wikimania 2012. A bid and organizing committee is being formed and seeks additional volunteers to help. Please look at our bid page and sign up if you want to help out. You can also signup for the bid team's email list.
2. To support the Wikimania bid, more events like WikiXDC, and outreach activities like collaborations with the Smithsonian (ongoing) and National Archives, there also has been discussion of forming Wikimedia DC, as an official Wikimedia chapter. You can express interest and contribute to chapter discussions on the Wikimedia DC Meta-Wiki pages.
3. To discuss all this and meet up with special guest, Dutch Wikipedian User:Kim Bruning, there will be a meetup, Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 16 this Tuesday at 7pm, at Capitol City Brewery, Metro Center. There will be a pre-meetup Wikimania team meeting at 6pm at the same location.

Apologies for the short notice for this meetup, but let's discuss when, where & what for DC Meetup #17. Also, if you haven't yet, please join wikimedia-dc mailing list to stay informed. Cheers, User:Aude (talk)

---

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

Tholzel blocked indefinitely

Hi Brad. I noticed your comment here after I had blocked this user indefinitely. A review of their edits seemed to indicate that they were solely here to promote their minority views on ethnicity, and to try to boost the reputation of a prominent holocaust denier, and to argue with others towards that end. I therefore took it upon myself to block them. If you feel I was too harsh, please feel free to comment here. Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 03:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I should comment directly on the merits of the block, because the block was not directly related to the arbitration case. If Tholzel does not request an unblock, the matter is closed; if he does, the block should be reviewed in the ordinary fashion.

That said, I'm sure you noted that when I voted to decline Tholzel's request for arbitration, I indicated I would consider a request to evaluate Tholzel's own editing, so you may reasonably infer from that that on a preliminary view of it, I considered that it seemed seriously problematic. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(Update)I've now seen the unblock request and the responses on Tholzel's talkpage. The case may now come before the Arbitration Committee as a ban appeal at some point, so I won't say more than I already have. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response; I appreciate your position and the message was mainly intended as a heads-up that I had indef-blocked someone who was concurrently (however frivolously) undergoing an Arbcom procedure. I guess I thought of it like an obvious speedy delete in the course of an AfD, but on reflection I am not sure how sound that logic really was. So long as my action didn't inconvenience anyone. Next time I guess I would wait for the case to be closed. Thanks again for the work that you do. --John (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

I don't know where to leave this message, and you can certainly post it somewhere else if it raises ex parte problems. I deeply respect your views, but I am wondering why you proposed one year when the offer had come down to six months prior to starting the arbitration. I would accept six months coupled with moving the policy question of "GA criteria incorporating USRD/STDS" to an RFC conducted by WPGA. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Posting here is fine except that only I will necessarily see it; if you post in your section in the arbitration case, all the arbitrators and parties would see it, which is better. I suggested one year simply because it is something of a standard that is used in arbitration remedies; I don't claim there is anything scientific about it, but no one wants this dispute to flare up again anytime soon. My proposal wasn't meant to pick up on any previous offers or discussions, but simply to try to get this situation resolved without a case—or without our simply acting by motion to impose some sort of interaction ban, which I suppose could also be a possibility. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I have posted a response in my section of the arbitration page to report that we have an agreement between myself and the roads people. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 02:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to finalize the RFC/U settlement, but there is a bit of last minute wiggling. Certainly, I am in tune with the spirit of your suggestion. Racepacket (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully it can be worked out. It's a big wiki with plenty of room for everybody. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

PC RfC

Hi, NYB. The natives are getting restless.

I know that ArbCom keeps you busy and that there's a lot of stuff to wade through here. I'm in no hurry myself but am concerned that an involved editor may attempt to close the RfC and spark unnecessary contention. To forestall this, I wonder if you'd be willing to confirm that you (with or without WJBscribe) are still planning to close it and, if so, provide some rough idea of the timeframe involved. Thanks very much. Rivertorch (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been starting to read through everything. Let me check in with WJBscribe and see where he stands, and then we can try to set a time-frame. Thanks for checking in. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Newyorkbrad. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification.
Message added 03:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Prompt comment on this idea is given The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 03:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello sir, i'd like to request for a review of my expulsion from this site. I have never been formally banished, but only restricted to no modifications for an indefinite period. What do i do? - Cap — Preceding unsigned comment added by Question for Bradley (talk • contribs) 15:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

If you are a trollish troll who is trollishly trolling, go away. (I fear the username is not encouraging). If in spite of appearances you are a good-faith editor seeking a opportunity to return and contribute productively, see our page on unblock requests; as a last resort, you may send an e-mail to the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011

Hi Brad,

I understand from this archived conversation that you were going to close the RfC at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011. Are you still up for it? I could make a request at WP:AN if you prefer.

I think the RFC needs to be closed now. There aren't many new commenters coming in. Some people are trying to lay down the law on how consensus should be interpreted so I think it would help if someone came in and just did the interpreting.

Yaris678 (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see threads above. I was tasked and agreed to close this jointly with WJBscribe, and he had offered to prepare some initial reactions; but he seems to have been pulled away for the past few days. I am looking at the RfC now—as you know, there are quite a number of comments, so it's taking a little while—and will do the close within the next couple of days. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. I can see you have a lot to work through. Good luck! Yaris678 (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That's an understatement. The question is whether it will close as Motion Carried or as No Consensus. We'll stand by. CycloneGU (talk) 02:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• - update - About this closure - we are currently at approx 21 days and we are all busy and the wheels are not quite dropping of yet - MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details#Watchlist notice for the pending protection RFC - I requested the watchlist notice was replaced for the next nine days, which has been done, bringing us up to the usual WP:RFC 30 day limit. If NYB is still willing to close around the 23rd April then that would be appreciated by all - this way, anyone can close the discussion at that time and request you to assess the consensus. Off2riorob (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Mr Creosote

Hi - I was wondering why my changes to the Mr Creosote article were reverted. While it may not have been a perfect edit, I thought I left the article in better shape than I found it. Arthur Holland (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no memory of that edit and certainly did not intend it. The article is on my watchlist, and I must have hit the "rollback" button inadvertently. I apologize, and have restored your edits. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi again -- thanks for the update and no probs on the accidental rollback -- I'm just impressed that an admin would have Mr Creosote on their watchlist :-) Arthur Holland (talk) 08:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Noleander arb case

I am retired, and was considering a slow return, but when I recieved notice of this case against Noleander (which I support and feel is long over-due) I have decided to remain inactive for the time being. I would however like for those involved to become aware that more evidence regarding the actions and thoughts of Noleander and Silver seren can be found on Jimbo's talk page in which Silver's beliefs on Jews are unqualified to edit Jewish articles is stated and Jimbo's admonishing that it is not, along with another thread that exists in which Jimbo states that editing in a manner in which only adding negative information about a racial, ethnic, or religious group is not acceptable in order to "balance" an article (Noleander's admitted goal), and that those types of editors CAN and SHOULD be banned. I do not know where to add this in the evidence or workshop and therefore I present it to you to be done with as you choose.Camelbinky (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut's ban

Please take another look at Zuggernaut's ban, request made as per Use reminders Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Please look at this fresh statement Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Blue people

Excellent thought experiment, thank you. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Arbitrator's Barnstar
		Awarded for thoughtful, open-minded, diligent and collegial handling of the Noleander case. --JN466 17:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The wikipedia jews throw their toys out of the pram (again).

Again Arbcom fails to conduct an independent analysis. How simple would it have been to take a random sample of Noelander's edits to check for misrepresentation, and display that process? How can looking at a few cherry picked diffs from the opposition possibly be reliable evidence for an overall pattern of editing?[1] It can't. The findings are fraudulent. Since when did Arbcom have the power to ban for undiscussed content issues anyway? But this isn't about fairness, transparency and the proper use of power. Arbcom is not an investigative body. Arbcom is bedtime with no supper for those those who provoke coordinated histrionic irrational tantrums among the wikipedia jews. It's merely a thouroughly corrupt and subserviant formality to give the impression of justice. The result was already decided the moment the jews started wailing. Anything for a quiet life. This is like having a case of "negative coverage" of creationism shouted into resolution by a gang of creationists (who happen to be related). But we couldn't hold the jews to the same standard. After all, that would be "anti-semitism". These people need to be voted out.