Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates/Newyorkbrad

Newyorkbrad

Part of a cadre of admins who mollycoddle the editor Beyond My Ken, taking complaints about non-constructive reverts and behavioral issues and dismissing them on technical grounds. Electing Newyorkbrad to the arbitration committee will create a more clique-y Wikipedia that protects disruptive and borderline abusive editors. Furry-friend (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, jeepers, you would deny me the mollycoddling I so richly deserve? (Try walking in my shoes sometime, I guarantee you won't feel coddled, molly- or otherwise. "Curdled" is more like it. Maybe I'm "mollycurdled" - is that a thing?)

That you would judge the very able and valuable Newyorkbrad by this one thing (assuming you were even right, which you're not) is an indication not you're really not thinking very deeply about people's qualifications, or, indeed, about what would happen if NYB was re-elected as an Arb. (Yes, "re-elected", because he was an Arbitrator from 2008-2013, and he was damn good at it. And the project didn't die of "clique-ishness".) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, BTW, the next time you feel like mentioning me, please don't ping me, I'm not really interested in what you have to say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit that I'm with Furry-friend, despite his obvious POV on the issue. It seems that there are many groups of editors and admins who are unnecessarily supportive of some editors despite their incivility or refusal to follow the rules on Wikipedia. This seems to be a case of that, although I haven't looked very deep and may be entirely wrong. Just my comment. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 20:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, Newyorkbrad has an amazing presence proven to me by his actions as one of three closing panelists in a recent controversial discussion. Newyorkbrad would serve as well or better than any have in this capacity. Paine Ellsworth ^u/c 23:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Language

In response to one of the questions raised for the candidate, I wish to say that I found his language straightforward and clear. As an ESL speaker, who has for years worked hard to express my ideas in English as clear as possible, I consider the candidate's writing skills admirable. Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 04:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

question

How do you plan on dealing with people who have are transition from other wikia to english wikipedia with knowledge of how to utilize the site but are thought to be socks? BlackAmerican (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackAmerican: If this is meant to be a question for me, the answer is that I do not believe in jumping to the conclusion that someone "must be" a sockpuppet or undisclosed alternate account merely because he or she shows familiarity with how to edit Wikipedia in his or her early edits. As you correctly point out, the editor might be familiar with wiki mark-up from another site using the software, or in a number of other ways. This exact issue came up recently in an RfA, in which someone claimed that the candidate "must have had" earlier accounts based on his early editing history, and I pointed out that this was not the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen a number of people blocked after an argument or debate on AFD's based upon an admin saying they are not a new account. Even when they say they are from other wiki, they are ignored. I find this to be quite unfair and wonder if changes will ever come to this issue. BlackAmerican (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]