User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2007/Sep

Misza bot III
Ok then. I will take a look. Thanks for the suggestion. Cordially, -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 20:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it would work better if I first archived August, but I will implement it on the 1st (today, effectively) -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 20:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually - instead, I have decided that I would prefer to do things manually, and will archive every 50 or so topics, but still arrange by month. Thanks all the same for the idea... -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 00:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Marché ouvert
Maybe this is not exactly your cup of tea but it is even less of a mine. By accidentally clicking on the "random article" link, I ended up at the orphaned and uncategorized law-stub called Marché ouvert that sits unnoticed for a year and a half. Perhaps, you can touch it up a little. Cheers, --Irpen 03:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I will take a look around when I get back from my trip, but I have to admit that I never heard of this term before just now. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Marché ouvert' is more properly called 'market overt' and the page should perhaps be renamed as such. May I suggest as a starting point? Regards. --Malcolmxl5 03:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

THF
I don't know how permanent I consider THF's retirement; if he were to return, would that mean the arb case would proceed? -- David  Shankbone  17:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be up to the arbitrators, who presumably would take into account whether the sort of issues that have arisen recently were continuing or not. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Since he just posted on the ArbCom board, that doesn't indicate retirement to me. -- David  Shankbone  17:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We'll see what happens. Personally, I would like to see him stay a contributor (albeit perhaps on a different article for now), but I can certainly understand if he doesn't care to at this point. Newyorkbrad 18:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree 100%...by no means to I want him gone as contributor. But I want his agenda gone, or pursued not so aggressively and questionably.  It's okay to have  POV---I'm a liberal---but I have never once put a FAIR or Media Matters source on Wikipedia, even though in my judgment they are fine.  It goes down to COI, and the appearance of COI.  Bias, and the appearance of bias.  He must known it looks bad for him to put AEI on articles...so why does he do it?  Really, are there no other sources for those point so view than those who work with him?  There are so many ways for THF to contribute without these issues being problems, and they aren't just problems with me.  He has these same problems on the law articles, he edits every Michael Moore article (we have only engaged on Sicko), and his other pursuits.  It's telling he has so many issues across the spectrum, whereas my issues, outside isolated photo arguments, are all with him and his agenda.  It's because he pursues it aggressively and persistently, in keeping with his philosophy of how to get one's way on Wikipedia.  Like I said, I want him here, and I have told him that, but he always crashes the same car.  So, I am glad for the ArbCom, and I am glad for the examination of my own behavior, too.  -- David  Shankbone  19:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Disgraceful...
Disgraceful :) -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 06:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Pizzaboy, I'll take a small pie with onions, please. Newyorkbrad 16:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * :P -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 16:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How did you come to be the pizzaboy in the first place? Newyorkbrad 16:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * DarkFall's mind is a very strange thing. One should not attempt to make an understanding of it ;) -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 21:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Clearly there is something I am missing here, but as I think about it I become convinced that it may be for the best that way. Newyorkbrad 22:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it is just that, during our verbal jousting, DarkFalls and I often seem to come up with some very strange concepts. Me being his Pizzaboy was one of his stranger ones... Please note that you are Bibliomaniac15's milkman... :P -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 22:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * He might want to reconsider that; for geographical reasons, I'm afraid that there would have to be quite a hefty delivery surcharge. Newyorkbrad 22:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Many people have offered their congratulations to me today, but your comment was particularly noticeable to me. Thank you very much for your kind words. I do indeed hope to be around for many years to come: I just hope that I am able to meet the expectations set by policy, the community, and by myself. Thank you once again. Cordially, -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 07:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 18:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sarah777
Brad, could you take a look at the this discussion on the British Isles talk page. The issue relates to the term British Isles. Sarah777 had previously made a POV fork using a "better name." Another user has done so again. Sarah is encouraging the user to continue in their work of doing so and is stirring it up in what is a known trouble area with talk of "political pov", "being persecuted by the Povians", "THEY are watching me!" etc.

(Apologies if this is not the right area to make contact leading from the ArbCom decision.) --sony-youth pléigh 12:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you believe Sarah777 has violated the arbitration ruling, and that useful discussion of the matter has been exhausted, you can post to Arbitration enforcement where an uninvolved administrator can review the matter. (The admin might or might not be me, but at least posting there centralizes things in one place.) It would be appropriate to let Sarah777 know if you do so. Newyorkbrad 13:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thanks. --sony-youth pléigh 13:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Collection of material proposed language
There is a new subthread having proposed language for Wikipedia:User page. You previously commented on this matter and your comments at Collection of material proposed language would be appreciated. Hopefully, we can bring this to a close with the next day or two. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 18:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I've posted a quick comment, and may come back with more later. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions about ArbCom cases
Hi, NYB. This is just idle curiosity, but if you have time, I'd like you to explain some things I've sometimes wondered about in the workings of ArbCom, or at least to give me a link to a page where I can find the answer. Thanks if you can satisfy my curiosity. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) If a particular case says at the top that there are eleven active arbitrators, so six is a majority, how exactly does that work? For example, I would think that six supports and five opposes would be weaker than five supports and six abstentions. At the bottom of the proposed decision pages, it says that four net support votes are required to close a case, and that each oppose subtracts a support. I take that as meaning that 4:0 is the same as 5:1 or 6:2, etc. But in the actual votes for remedies and findings of facts, etc., I see nothing on the page that actually shows what effect an "oppose" has on the outcome. Sorry if I'm being really dense. :-)
 * 2) If a case is brought, and one arbitrator votes something like "Reject. This is a content dispute", but several others accept, and the case is opened, does that mean that the arbitrator who voted to reject is not going to take part? (Obviously, he or she won't take part if "recused", but I've sometimes seen cases where someone who is around and isn't recused just doesn't take part, and I wonder if it comes from that arbitrator feeling that the case shouldn't have been accepted.
 * To reply for him, I can answer your questions from my point of view.
 * Abstention subtracts from calculation of majority. So 5 support + 6 abstain will also pass that particular section. (In fact 5 support and 2 abstain is enough to pass that section.) The motion to close is separate from the other voting items; motion to close require 4 net close votes while the rest requires a majority vote to pass (and as such oppose is more to indicate why they don't like the item). By default Arbitrators are assumed opposing an item except the motion to close, if that helps.
 * They sometimes still do participate, but we have a number of cases that get passed by just a majority, so normally 1 or 2 missing vote does not affect the voting much.
 * Hope that helps. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 12:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that. I'm still not clear on whether six supports and five opposes for a proposed remedy would make it pass where "six is a majority". ElinorD (talk) 13:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have some thoughts on this but am going into an RL meeting; will respond this afternoon or tonight in detail. The short answer is yes; 6-5 is enough to pass a remedy. The rule of "net supports" applies only to case acceptances and motions to close. Newyorkbrad 14:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've now had some more time to read through the above, and I agree with Penwhale's responses. (Although I wouldn't have said that "arbitrators are assumed opposing an item"; what is true is that failure to vote has the de facto effect of opposing until a majority is reached.) Feel free to ask if there are any more questions at all. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

BADSITES arbitration
It appears this one will go forward, so I am going to try to put together some evidence for this case, but I'm still unfamiliar enough with some of the archiving processes that I have no idea where to find the previous request for clarification of the MONGO case. That would have taken place around 12 April; of course, my contribution history simply links to the WP:RFAR page. Could you perhaps provide me with a link to it? Thanks. Risker 02:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * These are generally archived to the case talkpage, so see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/MONGO. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And that is exactly where it is. I'll keep that in mind for future reference.  Thanks. Risker 03:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Pssst
(You've only blocked Vlad fedorov for 6 months.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  14:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC))
 * (Fixed. The six month and one year durations are right next to each other, as you know, and I must have clicked too fast. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 15:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC))
 * (Why are we whispering? *Cremepuff  222*  02:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC) )
 * (Because someone might hear us, duh!) - Philippe &#124; Talk 22:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Just dropping by!
¡Hola, señor Newyorkbrad! I thought I'd let you know that I'm off my wikibreak. Also, is this the first time I've posted something here? :D *Cremepuff  222*  02:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you posted here just two minutes ago! What a terrible memory! But it's great to have you back on-wiki anyway. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, well see ya on IRC sometime! *Cremepuff  222*  22:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

How can I be an admin?
Hi, Brad. I wanted to ask you how do I go about becoming an admin? I've been editing since March 2005, and as of this writing I have over 7,100 edits. I got a pretty positive Editor Review in October 2006. I was commended for improving since beginning at WP, although I was given many recommendations on how to improve, which I've followed since in my editing habits. And helpful hints or advice? Thanks. Nightscream 07:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the short answer of course is that you put yourself up on Requests for adminship, either by accepting a nomination by someone familiar with your editing or by self-nomming, and hope that the community will review your contributions and your answers to the questions and think that you should be granted adminship. By way of preparation, as was said in your editor review, you will want to have a fair amount of experience in admin-type places like AIV and XfD and policy discussion, so that you will know how to deal with different types of situations that come up and when to press the admin buttons (and you will also make sure that you want the job, which is not always all that fun). If you haven't already, you can keep an eye on current RfA's as the progress to see what sorts of things the !voters look for in a candidate, and since your editor review was almost a year ago, you might consider putting yourself up for another one sometime. Hope this helps, and good luck. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

WJBscribe's RFB
Oh my gosh, you're absolutely right! I'm really sorry. I used RfA where I should have used RfB. I have just copied and pasted my nomination. Would it possibly be a good idea if you deleted the RfB page and then I can recreate it, for the way I can fix the nomination? Sorry again for that and thank you so much for tiping me off, Newyorkbrad!--Wikipedier is now U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 20:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. I hope you copied the text of the nomination itself. If not, let me (or if I'm not here another admin) know and it can be sent to you. Newyorkbrad 20:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, someone's pointed out that WJBScribe has indicated he would want to wait before seeking bureaucratship. I suggest that you check with him before spending more time on this right now. Newyorkbrad 20:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I just re-created the page. I'll do nothing more until WJBscribe has contacted me. If I shouldn't have created the subpage, I wouldn't mind if you deleted it again, for now. Thanks for letting me now.--Wikipedier is now U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 20:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you've re-created it, it can stay until he officially accepts or declines the nomination. If he declines, it can be deleted again. For future reference, though, the better practice is generally to ask the person first. I agree with you that he'll be a strong candidate when he's ready. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Won't happen again.--Wikipedier is now U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 20:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WJBscribe said that he would think about it for a few days. If I'm not active for some or any of those days, you still know that you can keep an eye out for his decision yourself and delete the page if he declines.--Wikipedier is now U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 01:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Yeah, the box at the top is roughly accurate, for now. Why do you ask? And thanks for the welcome :D Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Just curious, because sometimes I see people leave those for weeks and forget to take them down, and I'm not familiar with the school calendar in Australia so I couldn't judge for myself. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I put it up yesterday ;) And we have exams every term at my school - good times. Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Email sent. Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

user:Good friend100
Do you want me to unblock him to allow him to participate in his arbitration case? Spartaz Humbug! 20:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I certainly wouldn't object to doing so, but I don't know whether he is interested in participating or editing at this point. As the blocking admin, you would know better than anyone whether there could be a significant risk to the project from unblocking him. You can feel free to offer to unblock him for purposes of participating in the case, or alternatively, he can post evidence or proposals on his talkpage and as the case clerk I would copy them to the appropriate arbitration page. Thanks for following up on this. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Apartheid huh?
What is Fred doing here? It certainly is unusual, given that the proposed decision page remains highly fragmented and lacking even a motion to close... GRBerry 05:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that I do not know the basis for this action and have no information about it. I could offer a surmise, but I do not think that would be useful. I suggest that you ask Fred Bauder directly on his talkpage, or on the proposed decision talkpage. Newyorkbrad 16:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. could you please tell me why the workshop page at the Allegations of Apartheid case was blocked? it says that the case is closed, yet I find no corresponding indication of this anywhere. I'd appreciate your help with this. ALso, i'd appreciate it if you could please respond at my talk page. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 15:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see response above. Newyorkbrad 16:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The page is back now. The edit summary doesn't illuminate why, but I can live with the ArbComm being enigmatic; I'm used to it.  GRBerry 20:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply
Thanks for your kind words. If every wikipedian was like you then it would have felt nice being one. It's more important that people like you exist in the project, hoping that one day things will ameliorate. Miskin 16:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

E-mail!
You have kind of important e-mail. -- (Review Me) R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 02:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Received and responded. Newyorkbrad 03:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Responded, and if you get this soon, go on IRC now :] -- (Review Me) R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 03:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I went to bed instead of to IRC last night, but I should be around sometime later today. Newyorkbrad 17:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm on right now, and will be. When you get this, come on IRC if possible, or Google talk. I'll be on both just in case :]. -- (Review Me) R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 18:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe you missed this with all the millions of messages you receive in an hour, so...I'm on IRC and Google Talk now. Can you come on? -- (Review Me) R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 18:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm juggling some real-world things right now. I'll be on in an hour or so. Newyorkbrad 18:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
LOL, we both got hit by the same vandal:  :]. -- (Review Me) R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 04:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee
I'm just curious, would you consider running for the Arbitration Committee? From what I understand, you're already a clerk. I looked at your RfA, and you already contributed tirelessly then. I think you would be fully qualified to be on the committee.--U.S.A. (talk contribs ) 17:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind note. Nominations are in November and the election is in December, which is an eon away in wiki-time, but for what it is worth and absent some unexpected development, I do anticipate running for the committee this year. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Good call, and you certainly have my support. - Philippe &#124; Talk 17:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Probably premature to spend much time worrying about it now, though; there will be time enough for this later on. In the meantime, how is the discussion about the format of the Board elections going on Meta? I was a proponent of keeping that discussion going between elections, instead of waiting for the last minute again next year as we did this year, but do you know whether this is currently taking place? Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am embarrased to say that I don't know. If it hasn't started, it certainly should.  I'm leaving town today (we're going to go seat ourselves a new Bishop for Oklahoma) but when I get back I'll look into it and see about getting the discussion going if it's not already.  I agree that we need to think about it in advance.  The next election will be upon us before we know it, and we (or whomever) will be stuck with the "not enough time to make changes" arguments.  - Philippe &#124; Talk 17:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If I had come to Central Park last month, that's what I would have asked you. Not at all surprised by the answer. Having hung around for a bit longer, I think I will have more interesting questions this year than last. Jd2718 00:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would definitely support you as well; that is, if we ever get around to the logarithms thingy... *Cremepuff  222*  01:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Betacommand 2
Thanks for your imput at WP:BN. You may even be qualifed to be a bureaucrat, one day.--U.S.A. (talk contribs ) 17:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * One day? He'd be approved in a landslide the instant he applied. He was nearly drafted. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A., thanks again for another kind note, and of course I appreciate AnonEMouse's comment as well. I think there is a widespread view, though, that a bureaucrat candidate should have served as an administrator for at least one year, which I will not have attained until next January. Also, as mentioned above, I currently anticipate running in the Arbitration Committee election in December. Although I personally don't see the positions as incompatible, there are many respected editors who don't like the idea of one user's holding both positions (ArbCom membership and bureaucratship), and would be especially opposed to the same user's seeking both around the same time. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Should this be removed?
I understand the point that DS is trying to make here but do we really need another gratuitous mention of his name and his chin? I've asked DS politely to redact it, but he refuses, and I don't feel comfortable doing it since the discussion is regarding my behavior. ATren 18:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've just made my own long post to the proposed decision talkpage, so I am probably not the best person to address this issue. Please approach another arbitration clerk to raise this concern. Regards, Newyorkbrad 18:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. ATren 18:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Attack sites opened
Hello, Newyorkbrad. The arbitration case in which you commented to has opened. Please provide evidences on the evidence page for the Arbitrators to consider. You may also want to utilize the workshop page for suggestions.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 21:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

E-mail and IRC
Check your e-mail, and then go on IRC :]. -- (Review Me) R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 03:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Check your e-mail, and then go on IRC :] (hmmm...I feel like I've said this before) -- (Review Me) R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 16:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm at the Met game this afternoon. I'll follow up when I get home tonight. Newyorkbrad 17:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So perfect! You were at the Met game when the Phillies hit a grand slam! Great choice of day, Newyorkbrad! -- (Review Me) R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 19:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

RfAr clerk note

 * Thanks so much! Although, despite the :) at the end of the comment, I was identifying an issue that the clerks really will have to address if the case is accepted ... how to title the case without making it look like we are choosing sides. Of course it's good to know that the clerk notes are read so attentively. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 15:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Charles Matthews participating in THF case
Re: - are you sure? I didn't see any edits by him on anything related to the case. Raul654 21:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * After he voted on proposed finding 3 in the "attack sites" case, which is how I knew he was back, I followed up with a query at User talk:Charles Matthews. He responded there with a request to be moved to active on all pending cases. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Good thing I'm not a clerk
Paul August &#9742; 02:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * :) By the way, out of curiosity, was it my comments on the proposed decision talkpage that prompted your motion to close, or was that just a coincidence of timing? And I was wondering if you had any thoughts on my second paragraph there. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I was prompted. I consider every word you write, and I have lots of thoughts on everything. Paul August &#9742; 13:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed decision
Sorry, I didnt realise that page was just for admin. apologise if it was.--Vintagekits 23:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not for admins, but specifically for the arbitrators. But you can comment on the workshop (although anything new would probably get lost there at this point), or on the proposed decision talkpage. Newyorkbrad 23:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to...
In response to your message on my talkpage, fair point, however, I only reverted his page twice, what he is doing, is deleting my comments, and when I make a reply, calling them reverts, and threatening me with a block, what is your opinion on this? Meateater 10:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that your edits leave the impression that you are intentionally trying to goad Jeffrey O. Gustafson into losing his temper in his first day back as an administrator, and that you will be blocked for trolling and harassment if you don't stop at once. There is no need for you to be on his page. Newyorkbrad 10:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

spdelete tag
Thank you for bringing this problem to my attention, will be more carefull next time. Meateater 11:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. You are so nice.

RFA Thanks
  Click there to open your card! → → → Dearest Newyorkbrad, Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 96 supports, 1 oppose, and 3 neutrals. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. I'm a new admin remember, so if you have any suggestions feel free to inform me of them. I would like to give a special shout out to Hirohisat,  Wizardman , and  Husond , for there original co-nominations. Thank you once again and good day. Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor

Credits
This RFA thanks was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks. So unfortunatly this is not entirely my own design.

Happy Brad's Day!

 * This day shall forever be known as "Brad day" in 43 nations! *Cremepuff  222*  00:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well deserved. You're doing an excellent job here, Newyorkbrad. ElinorD (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent; I am glad you got your day, Newyorkbrad! :) Acalamari 22:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Seven of Diamonds" RfAr proposed decision
Yes, that was just an oversight; thanks for catching it. Kirill 19:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

American Family Insurance
Brad, would you please look into the revision wars on the article of American Family Insurance. I've tried to warn User_talk:Wegrzyns about using wikipedia to further their personal complaints, but Wegrzyns continues to change valid links to a personal homepage, and put in insubstantiated claims about the company. Thanks in advance! Timmccloud 20:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention. As a first step I have placed a general admonition on the article talkpage, and have watchlisted the article to keep an eye on it. I will keep an eye on further developments; however, please note that I may have limited internet access this weekend, so you might want to make another administrator or two aware of the situation as well. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate, much appreciated. I will bring it to another admins attention, and I plan to edit out a significant amount of offending materinal now that you have placed your warning.  Timmccloud 21:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Brad
I'm just passing by to wish you a very enjoyable weekend, and to echo your hope of a long and beautiful future of collaboration and friendship between us. I'm very, very happy that the small gift made you smile, for it is most deserved. Thank you for your kind words, and for all you do... and all you are, friend. Love,  P h a e d r i e l  - 11:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets
Hey Newyorkbrad. I'm The Random Editor. I'm a new admin and I noticed via WT:RFA this rfa, Requests for adminship/williebruciestewie. I noticed the nominating editor and he has very few few edits, all except one in contact of the person he is nomming, User:Williebruciestewie. The RFA is done wrong, and I was going to say that this is probably a case of sockpuppetry. However as a new admin, I don't know the procedure for handling this. Help. -- Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 03:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know that there's an official procedure for handling this. Best plan might be to post to BN or ANI for consensus on what to do. A checkuser might not hurt one bit, either. But in any event, someone will probably have reverted the RfA as "malformed" even before I finish typing this. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks NYB. I to exhausted to do anything else tonight but I will get around to it tomorrow, if it not deleted already. -- Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 04:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

R 2 RfA
Hi, I've had Requests for adminship/R 2 watchlisted for a while, but didn't think it was going to happen anytime soon. I was wondering, would you mind if I added a co-nomination? Nihiltres ( t .l ) 03:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind one bit, but of course you should check with the candidate. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

IRC
Go on IRC when possible. Thanks, -- (Review Me) R Parlate Contribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 14:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Jeffersonian
So, it looks like you are to be the architect of what will ultimately be the consensus policy/guideline on this. This is fitting and proper, and I'll try to cede to you the bulk of the writing, because despite my own conviction in my beliefs, there's no doubt that I'm definitely "left-of-center" on this issue, and far to much of an not-censored ideologue to actually write and propose a policy that correctly represents the true community consensus on this.

May I suggest the title of Off-Wiki Harassment as a nice neutral title for a new guideline. But that just off the top of my head. --22:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC) Or maybe Links to Off-Wiki Harassment or Linking to off-wiki harassment? --Alecmconroy 22:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know that I volunteered for that assignment. :) And actually, what I wrote up was also what I thought consensus would support right now; personally, I would go a little farther in the other direction from you and say we probably don't need links at all to many of these places. But the ArbCom decision page wasn't evolving in any profitable direction, so I thought putting something together would at least advance the discussion better than the sterile back-and-forth so far was doing. Let's see what happens next and go on from there. Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Linking_to_Off-Wiki_Harassment - begun per the above. Having spent a great deal of time trawling through the various ArbCom pages, I agree that that process has hit the skids somewhat. I've only made some very small changes to your pargraphs, and have added an introduction and nutshell. Many thanks for your huge effort in this regard, and I hope you'll take a look. Privatemusings 01:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Quick query
On the Giovanni arbitration page you said:

Editors who have submitted overlong statements are requested to shorten them promptly.

What if they don't? I believe Giovanni has been told not to make long posts on arbitration statements in the past (ref Sevenofdiamonds arb case). John Smith&#39;s 16:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Overlong statements that aren't edited within a reasonable amount of time are subject to being removed. This is a last resort, though, as it requires the arbitrators to decide whether to accept the case without access to one party's position. We generally rely on the assumption that a party would not want to leave a poor first impression on the arbitrators by disregarding a reasonable request by an arbitrator or a clerk (the clerks, after all, being helpers to the arbitrators). Hopefully this will be sufficient here, but we will see. Newyorkbrad 16:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I don't see why you just don't crop them. Never mind. John Smith&#39;s 19:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Then we'd get complaints about misleadingly incomplete cropping, favoritism, blah blah. Incidentally, your statement is too long as well. Newyorkbrad 19:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess that was because of the replies? Sorry about that. I'd take them off but then some of the replies to my replies wouldn't make sense - hope it's ok to leave them up for now. John Smith&#39;s 20:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Alternatively I'm sure you could crop all the "replies" and no one would complain - would make things easier. John Smith&#39;s 21:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

On the subject, I took out the evidence section, and made other shortening effects, so as to make the statement in line with the number of words that John Smith left. I know its still a bit long, but at least there is parity. And, I think the practice is to let those who are at the center of the case leave longer statements. I could shorten it more, if you so request.Giovanni33 19:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Brad, Giovanni posted over 2000 words on the evidence page. Can you please ask him to reduce it to the 1000 word maximum guideline. Cheers, John Smith&#39;s 17:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The evidence is not enforced with a rigid limit of 1000 words. The important thing is to make sure that the presentations are clear, concise, and easy for the arbitrators to follow. Giovanni33's evidence, though in excess of 1000, really is not unusually long for a party's evidence presentation, as these things go. However, feel free to run the situation by Picaroon, who is the clerk who will be primarily handling your case. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites/Proposed decision#Newyorkbrad's proposal
You may copyedit Requests for arbitration/Attack sites/Proposed decision. If you somehow create a proposal that would require a change of vote, the arbitrator will change their own vote. Fred Bauder 14:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I thank the arbitrators for this courtesy. Newyorkbrad 14:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Impressive courtesy. :-) Can you clarify about what happens should the two parts come into conflict? In other word, say that a given site is notable, and pretty clearly needs to be linked to. It has a subpage that contains an attack on an editor. So far so good, we link to the site's front page, not to the subpage. Now, say that site, like most blogs, and, oh, the Wikipedia, displays one of its subpages on prominently its front page every day. Do we have to remove that link on the days when it displays the offensive subpage on its front page, and put back the link when a different subpage shows up? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Nuances like that can be worked out on the policy discussion page, I suppose. For my part, the probably most accurate if somewhat weaselly answer is "it depends how bad the attack is." What would happen in the real world would be that we would debate for 24 hours whether to delete the link or not, until the issue becomes moot. :) Please note (everyone) that my proposals were simply meant as a starting point for some further discussion. Whether that should be occurring on the arbitration pages or the policy pages is an open question. Newyorkbrad 15:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with that, except that's exactly what happened at MichaelMoore.com, so we can't just pretend it's purely a hypothetical case. The attack was proportionally a rather small part of the site, but it was very prominently on the site's front page. Is linking to the site's front page in this case considered linking to the site, or linking to an attack page? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you post that query to the proposed decision talkpage or the policy talkpage or the talkpages of the essays mentioned in the two preceding threads and solicit community views. I have probably already said and written too much over the past 24 hours. Newyorkbrad 17:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ned Scott - FYI
Hi! Despite your warning, user made this "irresistible" post. He is maintaining an uncivil tone too. -- Cat chi? 11:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, he says it was irresistible, but I think he should have resisted. Newyorkbrad 16:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Resistance isn't as futile as the Borg claims it to be after all. I really have been dealing with Ned Scott's incivility and stalking for some time. There even was an RfC on the matter which this concern was raised. Ned Scott was given the benefit of doubt despite the overwhelming evidence back then - which is fine. I really do not want to deal with this as much as I dealt with User:Davenbelle/User:Moby Dick/User:Diyarbakir. It has been about a year since I started dealing with Ned Scott. See: User talk:Tony Sidaway and User talk:Thatcher131 -- Cat chi? 19:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

When I vote for your election to ArbCom...
my reason will be,
 * Support Can use gravamen correctly in a sentence. . Thatcher131 19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Your support will mean a great deal to me, whether offered for this or any other reason, and I regret only that you are not going to allow me to reciprocate. Newyorkbrad 02:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

R's RfA
Hi Brad. I saw your comment on Neil's talk page. Of course you're not one of the hecklers and I certainly wasn't pointing the finger at you. I did ask Neil to tone it down because the RfA is slowly spinning out of control and, obviously, there's no reason why it should. As a nominator and strong supporter of R's candidacy, you might want to similarly cool down Melsaran who, frankly, is getting pretty obnoxious. I'm wary of seeing the RfA degenerate into a bitching contest which will be even more discouraging for R. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 20:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I frankly don't think the avoidance of discouragement to R is really achievable at this point, but I appreciate your intent and comments here. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

My Userspace
It's my userspace, so no, I will not remove them. Meateater 16:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I deleted them under speedy criteria G10 (Attack pages). I might mention that while we give great latitude to user pages, they are not "yours". - jc37 22:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI: I've blocked the user. The edit history is filled with vandalism, incivility, trolling, etc. Also note the current talk page "discussion". That said, I welcome your insight on this. - jc37 12:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I can't say that I'm surprised this was necessary; the user's conduct has been problematic since I first encountered him. Endorse block. Newyorkbrad 12:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Legal issue concern
There is a concern that deleting the category would lead to legal issues. Could you comment to help clarify this? I'm asking you and User:Fred Bauder as you were the first two I could think of that I would presume are fluent in legalese : ) - Please invite anyone else you wish to join in the discussion as well. Thanks in advance. - jc37 22:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * User categories for discussion
 * I am not an intellectual property lawyer, but for what it's worth, I don't see any legal implications to whether we keep the user category or not. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you. - jc37 23:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

In behalf of your help
Thanks, you are polite and helpful, Pmupsinep 02:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism warnings
Please do not edit-war with regard to placement of vandalism warning templates on another user's talkpage. This practice is unnecessary and merely tends to exascerbate disputes, especially when combined with an argumentative edit summary threatening to replace the warning again if it is removed, as you did yesterday. If an editor chooses to remove a disputed template on his or her page, it is obvious that he or she has seen the warning. That is sufficient. Thank you. Newyorkbrad 08:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I think I may have walked into a dispute or something. I just didnt really appreciate my first message to be such a profound and uncivil accusation. However, the point I was trying to make was that User:Eusebeus removed a warning I put on another editor Jack Merridew's talk page. So an unrelated editor randomly removes a warning I issue? Sounds like sockpuppetry (I looked it up) to me? Punkguy182 17:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. Candidly, my comments were directed toward the situation where the person who is being warned removes the warning, and therefore we know he has seen it. If a different user removes the warning, that's a different situation. The way you used the word "you" in your edit summary, it was hard to tell whom you were addressing. In any event, I suggest less use of boilerplate warning templates and more actual communication to help resolve the editing dispute. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Block Review
Hi Newyorkbrad, thank you for spending your time to review my case. Today I tried it was restored. As you said, it is maybe an IP range block. I am not sure how that happened, but again thank you for your prompt repley and I will remove the block review request tag. Dongwenliang 15:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost article
Would you be willing to write an article for the Signpost on the attack sites issue and the current arbitration case? I think you have a good assessment and neutral POV on the issue and I think a neutral article on it would be of benefit to the community. Cla68 00:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I could do so if the editors want me to, but I've expressed opinions on some of the issues (as you know very well) and could be considered more involved than an ideal reporter on a story would be. So I might not be the best person to write the article, but would be glad to answer any questions from the person who does write it. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well done
For being the first to say it. I can't think of a time I've seen so many ordinarily sensible people behaving like 8 year olds in a schoolyard. Ironically the editor whose alleged incivility set the whole thing off seems to be the only one sticking to the point. —  iride scent   (talk to me!)  01:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration proposal
Yep, its OK. I didn't want me to get in a bad stand with other editors, so I thought me apologising (for what was on my half a very bad proposal) would hopefully resolve the matter. Thanks, Davnel03 17:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!!
Thanks for signing!! Do you have an autograph book I could sign? Cheers!!! Ninety wazup? Review meMy ToDosign here! 19:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I don't, but you've signed this page now and that is good enough. :) By the way, I responded to a question from you on Animum's talkpage, so make sure you look there. Regards, Newyorkbrad 19:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Robmiller

 * User:Robmiller
 * Note:User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2007/Jul
 * I note that the user apparently re-added the userboxes in question. Any ideas? Or is MfD the only route at this point? (I'm thinking about Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor...) - jc37 11:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Obviously, this user's page is not a high-traffic location, as the offensive material was re-added two months ago and you seem to be the first person to have noticed. Nonetheless, you are quite right that it should not be there. Ordinarily, I would have left a note for the user asking that the objectionable boxes be removed, but inasmuch as he is hardly editing and might not see it for some time, I have gone ahead and reverted it myself and left him a note explaining my action. Under the circumstances, I don't think an MfD is required; if the user disputes my action at some later date, we can discuss it then. Regards, Newyorkbrad 15:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)