Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:02, 14 January 2008

Archives

Description of archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Welcome!

Hello, Newyorkbrad, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! 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 Misplaced Pages
• 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Wordsmith Award

		The Wordsmith Award
		I just read the recent proposed decision that you authored, and I'm very impressed and pleased by the direction that the ArbCom decisions will take with such a skilled wordsmith aboard. Your propositions address every aspect of the dispute, leave little ambiguity for future interpretation, and actually could bring closure to the dispute. Thank you, and keep it up! Sean William @ 03:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You'll be (are) a great arbitrator. Keep up the great work! Sean William @ 03:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. This is greatly appreciated. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Bullying?

I was idly scanning over your talk page and noticed your barnstar above, so I started reading the proposaed decisions.

While I have no opinion on the case itself (haven't been following it much), the addition of the word "bullying" attached to threatening and harassing seems to be problematic in that it's woefully subjective.

All the user need do is stress their point in a discussion and be accused of "bullying".

Any chance someone could pull out a thesaurus and find a more precise word? : ) - jc37 12:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. All of these related concepts (harassment, bullying, etc.) are somewhat subjective and, like the policy at WP:HARASS, rely on editors and administrators to be able to distinguish trivia incidents from significant ones. Thus, I don't think "bullying" is too subjective a word to use in this context. I understand the nature of your concern, however, and you are welcome to post to the proposed decision talkpage to see if others share it. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks like it will close at this point. I just would rather not see an editor, debating passionately, being blocked for "bullying". I think that the other two terms are much clearer in usage. But I suppose it's moot at this point. Anyway, I hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 09:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, someonedid comment on the talk page at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Jim62sch/Proposed decision#Bullying. But it's now closed, with that wording. I guess that best I can hope is that my suggestion for being proactive will prove unnecessary. - jc37 10:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For expediting Misplaced Pages: Requests for arbitration to a reasonable time scale. That was a major campaign plank of most of this year's crop of candidates, and while everyone helps, I see your name leading on a large number of the proposed decisions. And not a proposed redirect to Clown yet! AnonEMouse 17:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. This is greatly appreciated. You are right, though, that I can't take sole credit for any improvements in efficiency that have occurred; Kirill Lokshin, for one, has doing his best to move the cases faster since well before I was appointed. I look forward to your continued input on cases of interest to you. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Jim62sch case

Hi,

I just just was looking over the case decision and saw something that you may want to address if it's relevant. Orangemarlin was added to the case, but I don't see his name anywhere on the proposed decsions, whether he is is impacted by these decisions or not. I think maybe a clarification on that point might be in order. wbfergus 19:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. Orangemarlin would be among those covered in the "Other editors" finding as well as the "Editors reminded" remedy. Although all editors should abide by the principles set forth in this case, as a party Orangemarlin will receive specific notice of the decision and be expected to abide by its terms. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the clarification. My first arbitration case that I've participated in or even seen, so I wasn't sure how it was covered if not explicitly stated. wbfergus 20:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad I could help. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've posted something about this case here. Posting to bring it to your attention (and hopefully the other arbitrators), in case it is missed as the motion to close looks like it will pass. Carcharoth (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I just saw that post and responded to it. I hope the response is helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom works in mysterious ways...

Newyorkbrad;

Firstly, let me congratulate you on your recent apointment. A bit belated I know, but heartfelt.

Secondly, may I express approval of your longer-than-just-voting style of commenting on proposed decisions in which you have been participating.

Finally, a (few) question:

While I've been watching the IRC debate closely, and was briefly comforted by there being no outrageous or draconian outcomes proposed, I notice that proceedings have paused while awaiting further evidence. Does this mean that it's pointless to continue on the workshop page with new suggestions?

Moot depending on the answer to the first question, but there's been two new proposed FoFs to the tune of "Tony Sidaway later apologised and played no further part in the dispute" and "Locus of the dispute." To date this arbitration's outcomes appear oddly silent in the role that Tony played, but a FoF that "washes his hands" seems more odd. Playing devil's advocate to myself here, Bishonen suggested elsewhere that a seperate abritration be raised regarding Tony's long-term behavior? I understand that you may be restricted in the manner you may respond to a "fishing" question, so any insight is appreciated.

Thank you for taking the time to read this,
152.91.9.144 (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note and for your comments. You should feel free to post proposals to the workshop, especially if they are not repetitive of ideas already suggested. The proposals on the proposed decision page are obviously not complete (this is a bit unusual, but any arbitrator had the right to put proposals on the page for voting), and I think you can anticipate more proposals being posted in the reasonably near future. Hope this helps. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Sadly, I only noticed that the pages were all semi-protected after I posted here. I'd like for that semi-protection to be lifted, but in the interim I'm putting a rough FoF here. (I'm hopeful that either someone watching your page or yourself will move it.) If there is sufficient discussion on this finding when/if it gets to the workshop page, I'll make a proposed enforcement of standard civility parole + disruption parole. Sorry if this is inappropiate. - 152.91.9.144 (talk) 05:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(Moved table to finding of fact proposal)

Thank you. - 152.91.9.144 (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Formatting

You did some formatting on Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration. See . However, the statement is not by Rikstar but by the initiating party, i.e. Steve Pastor. Now it looks as if user Rikstar made the statement, but he didn't. Just to let you know. Onefortyone (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. I saw the name and timestamp at the end and assumed that was the person whose statement it was, which would normally be safe, but not this time. Thanks for the message and I have corrected the heading. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Warlike

I do think there is something to be said on that subject. Perhaps the correct word is "provocative". The essence of the thing seems to me to be a pattern of behavior, outside the normal pattern of dispute resolution but without good reason, that seeks to emphasize conflict without seeking resolution. --Tony Sidaway 17:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Provocative conduct, both on- and off-wiki, should be avoided. This applies to all editors. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Vote for a post-meetup restaurant

I'm charged with making the reservations for us, so let's make it official. We'll do this via voting and everyone including anonymous voters, sockpuppets, and canvassed supporters is enfranchised. Voting irregularities and election fraud are encouraged as that would be really amusing in this instance. Please vote for whichever restaurant you would like to eat at given the information provided above and your own personal prejudices at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC#Let's make it official. The prevailing restaurant will be called first for the reservation. If a reservation cannot be obtained at the winning restaurant, the runner-up restaurant will be called thus making this entire process pointless. Voting ends 24 hours after this timestamp (because I said so). ScienceApologist (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I still don't know whether I will be travelling on business this upcoming weekend. I enjoy participating at meet-ups, but obviously will be unable to attend this one if I am abroad, and therefore will abstain from the restaurant selection process this time around. I'll know by tomorrow (Weds.) whether this trip will go ahead as scheduled or be postponed until spring, so possibly I will be able to make it after all. I'll post on the meetup page when I know. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It now looks pretty definite that I will be out of the country on the date of this meet-up. I have enjoyed all the meet-ups I've attended, and look forward to the next one. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Your comments with your votes during arbitration committee proceedings are very welcome. Viridae 01:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Jim62sch case

Hello Brad, thanks for dealing so efficiently with this case. May I suggest it might be a good idea to have a courtesy blanking on the evidence page (perhaps also the workshop, not sure). There seems to be a load of stuff on there that I at least wouldn't want to lie around forever, if I were in either VO's or Jim's place. Just a thought. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Email and box

I managed to get the box-at-the-bottom to work (I think) per your request, and I replied to your email. Sorry about all the new messages bars! Daniel (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Another email sent. This one should be the clincher. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

IRC?

Just for a sec? Thatcher 16:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Coming on (next week I won't be able to; today I can barely manage). Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

John Gohde 2 case

I see you moved yourself to away in this case, however you have voted in it. From my understanding this conflicts with the majority etc., although I'll defer to your knowledge if this was deliberate. I just thought it might have been an accident or something. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That was a mistake; thanks for catching it, and please move me back to active. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Actually, I had a few minutes online today so I've fixed it myself. Thanks again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Daniel (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Parole

Hi again Brad. I thought I was losing it there as I was going to correct you, but you had corrected yourself first! Incidentally, just who is supervising Vintagekits' parole? Although he has definitely calmed down of late, he can still be pretty spiky from time to time. Clearly this would not be a proper place for me to use or threaten to use my admin tools; but it would be good to know where to post any further complaints against him. In this historically difficult area of Misplaced Pages it seems to me that only a close-to-zero tolerance of incivility, trolling and partisan editing will enable a proper encyclopedic atmosphere to pertain. It seems to me that this is not currently being achieved, as R fiend's case readily reveals. I'd be grateful for your thoughts on the subject. --John (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesus you really are a nightmare - stop moaning and whining and get on with editing and added to wiki. I've been too busy adding to and creating new articles to get dragged into your games which are just a bloody headache. If you want to know what I have been up to recently all you have to do is look here - Kiko Martinez‎, Jose Legra‎ , Oisin Fagan‎, List of All-Ireland Fleadh Champions‎, Paddy Barnes‎ and Michi Munoz‎ - yet you want to come here to try and stir something up because I have been "pretty spiky" - cop on, grow up and edit some articles instead of going around looking to be offended.--Vintagekits (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Austrian economics

"There is no evidence of any attempts at even talkpage discussion of the content issues raised."

Have you read this? User:Zenwhat/Evidence. It's been updated substantially since you made your judgment, per criticisms made by Auburn (some that were correct) and also, diffs which establish the relevancy and discussion with East718 have now been included. Zenwhat (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at Talk:Austrian School (Austrian School being redirected from Austrian economics. I see no edits on that page in over a month. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Unfettered_Personal_Attacks,_Bullying,_and_Stalking_on_Asian_fetish

I've posted the following response on the arbitration board and would like to know what you meant by "appropriate involvement of administrators". thanks

• Response to Newyorkbrad: I am confused by your suggestion can you please clarify what "appropriate involvement of administrators" means? I already noted that I went to 3 admins for help. One ignored my request for help. The second told me to look elsewhere. The third told me that the problem is with me telling others that I will initiate an arbitration. Also note that User:Cool Hand Luke is an admin and is an involved party. So 4 admins will not help me resolve this personal attack issue. And the last time we on the page did RfC User:Cool Hand Luke came to the page and user:Crotalus horridus came back after taking a long hiatus from editing this article.Tkguy (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Tkguy (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

US Congress dates

As you may have noticed at Misplaced Pages: WikiProject US Congress, I've given up on the March 3/4 discussion. I found the pro-March 3rd editors' views were unreasonable (thus it was best that I departed, as my patients were spent). Anyways, goodluck on the Congress articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

How long do people usually have to wait for a response on RFAR Clarification? Samurai Commuter (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Days if you're lucky. Thatcher 03:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Esp if it requires arb involvement vice just clerk help. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, the individual at issue continues to be a contentious problem. See that article's Talk page and the most recent comment on my User Talk pages to confirm that I'm not the only editor who's noticing the contentious problem. More admins lurking there would be a good idea, at least until the clarification issues. Samurai Commuter (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia case

Brad, I would like to put up more evidence in the Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia case, though I probably won't be able to do it until tomorrow. There seems to be a sudden rush to close it. May I be given an extra couple of days? SlimVirgin 14:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)