User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2007/Dec

Hello!

Hello Newyorkbrad! Today I completed my second month on Wikipedia. I am enjoying my time here. I hope you are doing well. Regards, Masterpiece2000 12:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment

Dear Newyorkbrad/Archive/2007, Thank you for supporting in my recent RfA. Words nor pictures can express my heartfelt appreciation at the confidence the community has shown me. I am both heartened and humbled by this confidence. I will carry the lessons learned from the constructive criticism I have received with me as I edit Wikipedia, and heed those lessons. Special thanks to Pedro and Henrik as nominators. Special thanks to Rudget who wanted to. A very special thanks to Moonriddengirl for her eloquence. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 16:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

Since I have practically been living at Arbcom (gallows humor), would it be possible for me to volunteer as a clerk's assistant? I am becoming very familiar with procedures and this activity might help keep me out of trouble (more gallows humor). - Jehochman ^Talk 04:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The arbitrators just appointed a new Clerk (Cbrown1023) yesterday, so we now have five active Clerks (David.Mestel, Penwhale, Picaroon, Cbrown1023 and me) plus two fairly active clerk-assistants (AGK and Rlevse). I will put you on the list of people who are interested, and you should start to keep an eye on the pages (which as you indicate you've pretty much been doing already), but given that it's December 2, I suspect that any decisions on further clerk personnel are going to wait until the new arbitrators are installed after the elections. Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey thanks!

I knew there was a WP:AN and a WP:BN, but I wasn't sure about arbitrators. Thanks for letting me know! Icestorm815 22:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are actually several relevant pages depending on specifically what you need. I think Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration should have all the relevant links. Newyorkbrad 22:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to make a prediction - at the end of the election, you're going to set a record for the most number of supports for any position, ever. Raul654 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Any position, yes. Any vote, no. See my comment below about the Main page redesign vote. I've also never seen a full analysis of WMF Board elections and Steward elections (which obviously spread their net wider than just en-wiki) to try and determine the total number of people taking part. For that matter, a full analysis of en-wiki ArbCom elections would be interesting to see how many people vote in total (if you look at all the candidates). Should be a fairly simple analysis - someone should try that one day. Carcharoth 03:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom Election

Notice the time :D. And then read my updated vote...which was a few edits later. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that my vote is out in the open, I just want to say good luck in this election. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You're on fire! Maybe you'll exceed Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Can't sleep, clown will eat me.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I should take my comment back. I'm not sure even bad luck would stop this one. :-) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Up, up, up and away! Good luck....not that you'll need too much more. - Rjd0060 01:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

128 votes in support in 3 hours! Is that some sort of record? CSCWEM got 403 votes with 303 supports. The elections run for two weeks. Someone's already put you on WP:100. Hmm. I wonder if the en-wiki record (as far as I know) of the Main Page redesign poll vote (687 support and 213 oppose) is within reach? I suppose not, but you never know. I still get shivers down my spine every time I look at that Main Page redesign poll. 943 different users stirred themselves to express an opinion (forgot the 43 neutrals). Sorry. I'm reminiscing now! :-) Carcharoth 03:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Just chiming in. Took me 4 edit conflicts before I could get my 'support' in. Jd2718 03:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all very much. Newyorkbrad 16:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeez. What a great decision to stand. — Rudget _{contributions} 17:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Asgardian/Tenebrae

Regardless of the outcome, I'd like to thank you for clerking and also thank the other editors for arbitrating this case. We're all volunteers, and contributors like you and they take on an extra burden and responsibility with these duties. I know I speak for the community when I say thank you for voluntarily taking on these critical additional tasks. Best regards,--Tenebrae 03:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Your appreciation is ... appreciated. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow

Stone me it's a Landslide! Rightly so, congratulations mate --Joopercoopers 15:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Hear hear. I supported other candidates (and opposed many), but Brad was the ONLY one that I had absolutely no reservations about at all. - Crockspot (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• forget WP:400, let's shoot for WP:500. Thatcher131 00:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• At about 407 now. :) Impressive. Acalamari 18:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Moral support

I've made up my mind on which candidates to support for arbitration committee, but coming to your vote page I find it's already become a ridiculous pile-on. For that reason alone I'm not voting to support you. This is a note of my moral support for your candidacy. Best wishes, I know you can easily handle the job. --Tony Sidaway 18:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Tony. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking if we run up the vote too much, it will be harder for next year's popular candidate to break NYB's record, even with the inevitable growth of the project and voting base that will occur over the upcoming year. NoSeptember 21:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Your election will be well-deserved. I'm very impressed with how you handle yourself, even during tense issues. --David Shankbone 21:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I know, the tension about whether or not he will get elected is nerve wracking. :-) And if next year's best candidate is half as qualified as Brad ... well, we should be so lucky. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I like Gentgeen's oppose best. Oppose per Catch-22. There should be a template for that. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Suffrage discussion

Could you take a look at the discussion currently about the edit count restrictions here and add your comments, if any? I'd be interested in your opinion on the matter. Its under the "lost suffrage" section. Avruch^Talk 22:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As a candidate myself, I'm reluctant to comment on the rules for the election while it is still taking place. I can say from my own experience on the committee that ran this year's election for the Foundation Board of Trustees, it is hard to know just where to set a minimum edit count to deter socking and ensure that voters have some reasonable commitment to the project, without disenfranchising genuine contributors. I may have some further thoughts on this after the election is over. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

John Peter Zenger

I know you are probably busy, and about to get busier, but there was some discussion about John Peter Zenger here, and I promised that I would dig up a source. Since I am now "retired" from the main namespace, I thought I would pass the reference along to you, and perhaps you can pass it along to someone who can make good use of it, and find another copy of the book. I did not see this book cited or listed in the article, and any article about Zenger would be incomplete without at least listing it as a reference for further reading. Two templatized versions below, one for the special edition leather bound reprint that I have, and one for the edition that it was reproduced from. (The edition I have may probably only be found in the libraries of NRA members, but it might be easier to locate than the 1963 or earlier editions. I have seen other titles from the special edition series on eBay and amazon.) According to the publisher's notes, there were a number of 18th and 19th century editions, some of which are in the NY public library's rare books and manuscripts collection, but the 1963 edition is considered the most complete and authoritative. Cheers, and good luck with the arbcom, you have my full confidence that you will be one of the greatest arbiters of all wiki time. - Crockspot (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Alexander, James (2001). A Brief Narrative of the Case and Trial of John Peter Zenger, Printer of The New York Weekly Journal. Palladium Press. pp. 238 pgs. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) (No isbn number, the title page states "Privately printed for members of the Library of American Freedoms.")

• Alexander, James (1963). A Brief Narrative of the Case and Trial of John Peter Zenger, Printer of The New York Weekly Journal. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. pp. 238 pgs. Library of Congress card catalog number 63-19133. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) (This edition was also distributed in the UK by Oxford University Press.)

You should feel free to unretire and add these references yourself. I have some other articles that I already feel guilty about not working on, so shouldn't add to the list right now, but User:GRBerry recently poked me about this article on this page, so you might try him. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I'll point GRB to a diff of the above. Crockspot (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Hi, Brad. I was just looking at your voting page and you seem to be doing very well, so congratulations. I may or may not vote, and you clearly don't need my vote in any case, but I wanted to ask you about this incident from a few months ago which still slightly rankles with me.

If you remember (and I don't see why you would), the sequence of events was:

1. A fairly new user made this edit to an article.
2. User:MONGO reverted ('rvv') and left them this warning
3. I removed MONGO's warning as I thought it was inappropriate (WP:BITE, WP:VAND), and left him a message about it. I did not restore the user's edit to the article.
4. MONGO and I had a fairly civilised discussion about what had happened, in which we both acknowledged we had made mistakes. I apologised here for the misunderstanding. I then went away to do some real life stuff, as I considered the matter closed.
5. MONGO then raised the matter on WP:AN/I under the heading Administrator harassment from User:Guinnog (my user name at the time). You made this comment, which was entirely inaccurate and seems to show that you did not investigate what had actually happened at all prior to commenting. After another user pointed this out to you, you made only this clarification of where you stood on the matter (which I didn't understand then or now). You did find time to message MONGO about the support you had given him on the board.

I am very sorry to bring up something which happpened so long ago, but I thought at the time that you showed poor judgment in the way you handled the whole thing. It never seemed worthwhile to take it any further, as I know (and had already acknowledged) that I made mistakes too in the affair, as did MONGO.

When I saw you were running (and indeed a seeming shoe-in) for Arbcom, I thought that I should share my misgivings with you though, and give you an opportunity to comment on what if anything you have learned from the matter. I am posting this here rather than at the election page as it relates only peripherally to the election; I would have no problem about moving it there if you prefer.

Finally, let me say that that is just about the only time I have seen you slip up here; normally I look to you for a sure and reliable pair of hands, which is what you seem to provide again and again. It is just unfortunate that in that one matter where I did have a direct dealing with you, that you didn't seem to investigate before commenting. Best wishes, and thanks for your attention. --John (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC) (formerly Guinnog)

Thank you for your message here. To begin with, I will admit that I was not aware of your username change. Occasionally I will look at an old discussion thread or RfA or whatever, and for a little while had been saying to myself, "I wonder whatever happened to Guinnog." Our rate of turnover and loss among experienced editors and administrators is one of the project's most serious problems, so I am very glad to see that you are still active, and I fault myself for not having realized earlier who you are.

The matter you mention had indeed slipped from my memory, but I have read the diffs you cite as well as the entire thread they are part of (now found in ANI archive #222). I believe that most of my post there, in which I deprecated the insertion in Wikipedia articles of unsupported and defamatory conspiracy theories about the events that took place in my city on September 11, 2001, was completely appropriate. However, I made an error in the last line of my post, which referred to the offending material having been reverted back into the article after it had been removed. As I say, I do not remember this specific post from eight months ago, but it is obvious that I either relied on a statement from someone who posted earlier in the discussion which turned out to be incorrect, or I misunderstood what someone had posted. When I learned that this was the case from another user's correction, I said that I agreed with the correction and that my post was modified accordingly. On rereading the thread it is obvious that I should have used a better and more apologetic wording at the time, and I am sorry that I did not.

I too am sorry that our only direct encounter so far was an unpleasant one, and hope that can change in the future. I thank you for your other kind remarks. Newyorkbrad 00:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Obviously my quarrel was not over the original edit which I agree breached WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, but with MONGO's characterisation (in edit summary and templated warning) of the edit as vandalism. It was offensive to me that a very respected figure such as yourself would have thought for a moment I would have restored material to the mainspace which violated our policies. Anyway, water under the bridge and (for what difference it may make) I have supported your candidacy. Thank you for allowing me to get that off my chest. --John (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No, thank you for doing so. My only regret about your bringing this up is that if it was bothering you, I wish you had done so some months ago. Newyorkbrad 00:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, you are right and I apologise once more for having been unable to forget the perceived slight during the time that has elapsed; it seemed, and seems now, to have been a small blip in an otherwise stellar performance. I really appreciate the work that you do here, and I am sure that you will make an excellent arbitrator. I shall try harder to forgive and forget in the future; I suppose we are all growing and learning as we go here. Best wishes, --John (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Brad...that full thread is here, and continues sort of into the next thread below that. Ho, hum.--MONGO (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at it yesterday when I was trying to remember the incident John was referring to. Looking back it appears that I made one mistake which I acknowledged at the time but could have been more clear. The rest of what I wrote I stand by. I don't think it's worth spending more time on the thread from eight months ago but I know that you have concerns about unsupported content on the September 11 articles and I agree that inappropriate and libellous content does not belong. Newyorkbrad 18:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are you so popular

Just a thought!!

opiumjones 23 (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.

1. He looks good in a bikini?
2. He hands out huge handfuls of cash?
3. He's everyone's third cousin's aunt's brother's best friend twice removed?
4. Orbital mind control lasers?
5. More seriously, he does a lot of work, makes wise suggestions, and stays very calm during tough conflicts. He gets engaged in tough conflicts, which is hard enough in itself, but he somehow does it without making enemies, which is unbelievable. He can often manage to make both sides in a dispute agree with him, no matter how much they disagree with each other. Maybe the mind control isn't that far fetched. Some of the Barnstars on his user page have links that you can follow. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 02:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Two main reasons: WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. ATren (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it was definitely the bikini. Risker (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ping

Ping. Email. Viridae^Talk 05:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Received and will respond later today. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Touchy question

I have been contacted by User:Iamandrewrice, who would like to appeal his ban to the arbitration committee. In loking through the WP:ABN pllicy, I see that it says the committee or an arbcom clerk should be contacted by email. Given that banned users cannot access the Wikipedia email fnction, I said I would contact a clerk to ask how to proceed. I have also given him this address: arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. Is this the appropriate address and if not, how does he proceed.

Thanks in advance for looking at this. I realize that banned users are not a big priority, but still felt some small measure of compassion for someone who used to be my adoptee. Thanks, Jeffpw (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Actually, blocked or banned users can still access the Wikipedia e-mail function, unless the blocking administrator specifically checks a "block this user from sending e-mail" box, which according to the block log doesn't seem to have happened here. Therefore, the user can still e-mail me and I will forward his message to the arbitrators. If there is trouble doing that for some reason, the address for the mailing list is on the Arbitration Committee page. I appreciate your concern for your adoptee and am sorry things didn't work out better. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Few questions

Hello Newyorkbrad. How are you? What is Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections? I know that Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process. Can you please explain it to me a little more? And, do people vote in these elections? Can I vote? Please reply on my talk page. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Support!

Hello Newyorkbrad! I have supported you! I hope you will do a great job in the Arbitration Committee. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my Talk page. I'm pretty sure I know who was involved, and needless to say he's a long-term pest who should definitely be indefblocked. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Insomnia?

Re: [1], It's 3am EST, Don't you think you should be asleep? Paul August ☎ 08:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

And what time did you post? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Hello. A request for comment has been opened regarding User:Kmweber's oppose !votes on WP:RfA has been opened here. You tried to get Kmweber to stop his behaviour on his talk page, so your endorsement of the dispute is required within 48 hours. Thanks, Auroranorth (!) 09:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up. I will watch the page. However, I don't think I have much to add to the comments I made on the prior RfC over the summer. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

500

Five Hundred supporting votes. Nearly 100% approval. Wow. Congratulations. I am going to try to study your edits to figure out what you do right. --Blue Tie (talk) 10:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Shawn Hornbeck

Hi Brad - As I recall, you were involved in the resolution of the Shawn Hornbeck issue some time ago. The final resolution has somehow slipped my mind, and I am not in a position right now to review it even if I could remember where to find it. However, if you have a chance to look at this[2], perhaps you can identify if that is in keeping with what was finally decided. Thanks. Risker (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The articles on Shawn Hornbeck and Ben Ownby were redirected (initially to the article about the person who had kidnapped and mistreated them, but later to Shawn Hornbeck Foundation which was newly created and is certainly a better target. My heartfelt and overlong thoughts on the entire subject can be found at the top and then in the middle of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May#May 28#Ben Ownby and Shawn Hornbeck see under the headings "deleting administrator's response" and "further comments and introspection by the deleting administrator"; see also, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff text of final decision in page history; see principles 2 and 3. I do not believe it was envisioned that the latter article would grow to reincorporate all the material that was deleted, and in particular do not believe that it is appropriate to include Ben's name, but this is an editorial decision and I don't know that it was resolved one way or the other in the course of the deletion discussion. I hope that editors on these articles will resolve this issue with sensitivity and consideration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)