User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2010/Mar

No problem
Of course you have my permission (you know you don't need it, but thanks for the courtesy). Feel free to attribute it (or not) any way you want -- perhaps to "one editor on Wikipedia" or "one wag" or something like that (my slight preference) unless you really feel you need to go into more detail (if it's a Wikipedia audience, then my user name would be nice). It could really be improved on by someone who knows legal procedure and language better than I do (for the particular readers it had, that didn't matter). Please don't consider this any kind of a reason to recuse from some Arb action I may bring. Christopher Buckley has a lawyer character (nickname: "Shameless") in some of his books (I think No Way To Treat a First Lady is the primary one), so if you like that kind of thing, you'll love them. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal has begun
The RfC on the Community de-Adminship     proposal was  started  on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the  existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working   compromise, so CDA is still largely being  floated as an idea.

Also note that, although the  RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and  Neutral, with Comments  underneath), this RfC is still essentially a  'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.

Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 11:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Noted, thanks. As I've mentioned, as a sitting arbitrator, I probably won't !vote in the poll. I happen to think that the CDA proposal is a bad idea, but since the Arbitration Committee is the current vehicle for desysopping, opposition by arbitrators may be (wrongly) seen as an effort to entrench our own authority. Thanks again for the heads up, however. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do something
Please unblock that Kmweber guy. He created an article. If there's an AFD, he would know how notable the article's subject is and explain it better if it is not clear. If this editor did something else bad, then it can be noted in some discussion to block him. But if it is just the AFD, have some common sense. After all, the restrictions are to get him to edit articles. So he does.

Wikipedia should not be the corrupt sheriff that dreams up a reason to arrest someone or thinks up a technicality. If the guy was putting "oppose this and all RFA", then blocking is justified. But blocking for defending your own article is plain mean. Ipromise (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The AFD was relisted on 6 March. Now someone closed it and deleted the article. This is abuse of process. The AFD should just run its course. I was researching it with an open mind trying to decide keep or delete but then it disappeared. That would be like a lawyer given a deadline to file a motion then an hour later, days before the deadline, the person is jailed for life. What kind of kangaroo court is Wikipedia now? If I had time to evaluate the article, I might have even voted delete. Ipromise (talk) 04:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your notes. I think you posted this after I'd gone to bed the night of the block, and by the time I saw it, Kmweber had already been unblocked following the ANI discussion. And the article in question was being reviewed at DRV last I saw. But thanks for your input, which I assume was motivated by my comments on Kmweber's page (which probably surprised him greatly). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your nuanced wisdom. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 22:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt input. And please see my comment in the thread just above this one. Regards Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Link in Talk:Gibraltar to Arbcom?
I have very little experience in WP (only 7 months, unfortunately almost completely in the Gibraltar article so far) and surely none at all with ArbCom, so I wonder if it would be appropriate to post a link in the Gibraltar talk page to the ArbCom page. If someone tries to follow what is going on at the talk page, it would be useful for them to see that it goes on in ArbCom. But maybe it could be considered canvassing, or it could bring in too many commentators to the ArbCom case... I don't know. Would it be alright to include the link there?

Thank you. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it would be okay to mention that there is an arbitration case pending involving this article, as long as it is posted in a non-biased way. You might want to wait a day or two to post the note, until the case is officially opened, so that you can link to the correct pages for statements, evidence, and workshopping. The arbitrators always appreciate informed statements and evidence, though not repetition of partisan views and name-calling that we often see too much of. One of the arbitration clerks might be able to help word an appropriate short note on Talk:Gibraltar. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Calendar
Perhaps you would like to weigh in on a legal question about adopting calendars. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've responded there. I'm going to do a little more research and if I find anything else I'll add it. Thanks for the heads up to an interesting question. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for Signing My Guestbook!
I would like to thank you for signing my guestbook with this barnstar:


 * }
 * You're welcome. Make sure you click on the link in what I wrote, and think about what it means in the context of the signature. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Abd
Thanks for doing the sensible thing re: User:Abd. Note that he's committed to file another RfAr in a few days when he's back from his block but I'm not sure there's anything we can do preemptively about that. We probably need systematic changes to deal with time sinks, but I'm not sure what those would be. -- samj in out 21:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. Because, as you indicate, Abd may be involved in further or related case requests, I probably shouldn't say anything else here, but I appreciate your input. The arbitrators receive a great deal of criticisms for decisions that people disagree with, so an occasional note of agreement is very much appreciated. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. I would ask though that you ensure that the request be archived because, while there was an attempt to withdraw elsewhere on the wiki, this was made with the benefit of knowing your initial position and in any case the instructions clearly state that "Requests from banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Committee". Over a dozen editors (including myself) invested almost 10k words into the request and it is overwhelmingly likely that we will be forced to revisit it. Thanks again. -- samj in out 14:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Seeing the above, I archived the page as it was closed by you, Brad, on the Talk page for the subject RfAr. I hope this is satisfactory. If not, obviously, I have no objection to a clerk fixing it. Looks like your request may have been overlooked. --Abd (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for shutting that request down promptly.
. I made the request to withdraw on my Talk page at a point when you were the only arbitrator who had commented. I'm a little surprised that nobody seems to have noticed it, nor did anyone notice the request by GoRight for a clerk to remove an inappropriate edit to the header of the my request, I removed it just before I posted the withdrawal request. Something very strange is going on, I'm seeing these lacunae all over the place. Anyway, thanks. --Abd (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that I did not see your request to withdraw the clarification, and I guess neither did the other arbitrators. Bear in mind that we don't necessarily watchlist the talkpage of every editor who is or has been involved in a dispute. I hope no similar situation will arise in the future, but if necessary, an e-mail to the arbitrators' mailing list would have received prompt attention. May I respectfully add, a concise e-mail. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course. However, there are lots of editors who do watch my talk page, it's obvious, and any one of them could have taken it to the request page. I considered writing arbcom-l, but have thought to reserve that for emergencies; after all, it intrudes on all the arbitrators, presumably, or is there some filtering process? --Abd (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Note from Newyorkbrad
I'll be out of the country with limited Internet time from March 12 to approximately March 22. I expect to be online occasionally, but any urgent matters during this period should be addressed elsewhere. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Copycat (jokes). You will now proberly be the one standing across state lines :D inside between NYB and myself -- sk8er5000 yeah? 07:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Opening Statement
Is there any particular reason why I can't make an opening statement, or for my opening statement to be reverted simply because I was unable to make one earlier due to a family emergency? See and.

Is it acceptable that it appears I've acquired a wikistalker? See and the discussion that prompted me to contact Eyeserene. Talk:Gibraltarian people Justin the Evil Scotman talk 12:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You may add your statement to the talkpage of the casepage, with a note about why you were delayed in posting it. Your statement will be reviewed by the arbitrators. If there are any questions about your right to add the statement in that location, you may note this reply.
 * Wikistalking is not acceptable, but given that the arbitration case is before me, I probably should not comment on your allegation in this regard at this time. You may raise it within the context of the case as well.
 * I hope this is helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Motions
I wasn't sure if I did this right. Is that OK? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Appeal rejected
I added an update. The appeal was rejected. See "Monserrate's Request to Reverse Expulsion is Rejected". Hopefully this is now sufficient? -- Cirt (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ''Regarding: Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard
 * Care to take a look at this? -- Cirt (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think what you have written is satisfactory. Theoretically, all that the District Court and Court of Appeals have done is deny Monserrate's motion for a preliminary injunction; his underlying action remains pending. However, the chances that any court would undo the expulsion after the election of Monserrate's successor tomorrow are infinitesimal. Incidentally, the Court of Appeals issued a one-line affirmance with a notation that a full opinion will follow, so I will keep an eye open for the opinion to be issued in due course. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Update . Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You're invited to Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)