Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:15, 9 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)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays Newyorkbrad. Have a Happy New Year !

A seasonal postcard comic

Queluz National Palace

This article, to which you contributed, will be featured on the Main Page on January 5, 2008. Risker (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Newyorkbrad

Congratulations again on your successful ArbCom candidacy as well. Acalamari 18:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Making you aware

I semi'd the IRC ArbCom Workshop and its talk page for 72 hours, looks like an anon using a bunch of Tor proxies reaaaaaaaaaaallly wants to put forward a remedy to have Ryulong desysopped. If I overstepped my bounds or for what ever reason you think I stepped over the line in semi-protecting it, please feel free to undo it :) Congrats on the ArbCom btw. SirFozzie (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Administrators active on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration enforcement

Per I will notify them about the case. -- Cat 19:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I would be interested to see just how many admins have contributed there recently... Thatcher 20:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Surprisingly, 9 admins have posted within the last 500 edits, although only five have 6 or more edits. Thatcher 20:14, 4 January 2008 (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)

]

Should this image be up for deletion? Hasn't it has been properly donated to the public domain by the uploader? Happy New Year! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really my area of wiki-expertise, but I gather the user questioning the image's status is asking for verification that the person who uploaded the photo is the person who owns it. You should verify with the user who listed the image that that is indeed his or her concern. It may be that a permission letter or e-mail submitted per the procedure in Misplaced Pages:Copyrights would readily resolve this issue. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Minor point, but needs correcting

Actually, in the Zeraeph Arbitration, FayssalF is also recused. Could you correct that update you just made, and its implications for the majority needed? Thanks, Jeffpw (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a link, for me or the Clerk handling the case, where FayssalF indicated he was recusing? The list of arbitrators on the proposed decision talkpage currently shows him as participating. Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Here you go. I think I am reading this correctly. My apologies if I have misunderstood. Jeffpw (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Whoever opened up the case pages (not me) missed it. I'll have it fixed and thanks for mentioning it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Skyelarke/Buscema

Hi, Brad. I need to ask you the best way to handle this. Johnn Buscema Arbitration party Skyelarke, who already inappropriately tried to edit John Buscema almost immediately after it was unprotected (another editor rv'd), is now archiving Talk:John Buscema even though the Arbitration is still active. (Another, different editor rv'd that here, and Skyelarke rv'd that!) I hate to contemplate that we may need to protect these pages again; what is the best way to have Skyelarke not attempt these end-runs around the Arbitration process while these pages are unprotected? Thank you for any advice. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The arbitration case is going through voting right now and I expect it to close within a couple of days. At time the remedies passed by a majority of the arbitrators (which are harsher that I proposed for both you and Skyelarke, but the majority rules) will take effect and hopefully they will help resolve the issues. Any problems after that can be taken to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration enforcement but hopefully there will not be any. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:05, 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)

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)

A proposed FoF

Tony Sidaway is frequently the source of, or very near to, large-scale disruption, mostly over issues that are confined to Misplaced Pages space and do not directly effect the production of encyclopedic content. Principle amoung these are the "wars" over userboxes, signatures, and spoilers.

As the items below indicate, Tony is involved in disruption of some nature every few months.

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)