User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2012/Apr

Harassment of editors and Arbcom transparency
On my talk page at User_talk:Russavia, there is a discussion between myself and your fellow Arb User:AGK, concerning an issue which came to the attention of Arbcom. As the various links and diffs show, many editors saw the recent RFC/U against User:Fae as harassment, at best, and as homophobic harassment, at worst.

AGK firstly stated that he "voted" to ban Delicious Carbuncle, then has "corrected" himself to state that he merely was in favour of the Committee reviewing the case; either way there was opposition on the Committee to either banning Delicious Carbuncle or even reviewing the harassment that Fae was being subjected to.

As an Arb, the community elected you to represent the community for the community. The Committee time and time again pushes on editors who come before it that transparency is essential in our editing; in fact, transparency is one of the key tenets of this project, however the Arbcom often does not act in the same transparent way that it (and the community) expects of the community itself.

AGK states on my talk page that one can only expect a transparent hearing if a request for arbitration is filed, and states that most Arbcom business is conducted this way. This notion is somewhat correct, but it is also very wrong. As the committee time and time makes a point of stating that community transparency is essential, the community also expects the same of the Committee -- at all times. The Committee also makes many decisions "behind closed doors", and when pushed to explain decisions cites various "get out of jail free cards" to avoid being transparent to the community-at-large. This includes decisions such as banning editors for things done offwiki which can't clearly be attributed to that editor, or unbanning editors with a history of socking, etc, etc.

In aid of this, and in the interests of transparency to the Community at large, I am asking that you answer the following questions:


 * 1) Did you discuss the harassment of Fae on the Arbcom-l mailing list?
 * 2) If you did discuss this on the mailing list, were you in favour or against the Committee reviewing the information?
 * 3) If the discussion got to anything resembling a vote, did you vote in favour or against banning Delicious Carbuncle?

These are very simple questions which one is able to answer if they are truly for transparency both on the Committee and in the community in general, and I would expect that many in the community would be wanting transparent answers to these questions.

The last thing, it is of course Fae's choice if he wishes to request a case for Arbitration, but these questions are not being asked to have an end-run around the Arbitration process, but are being asked in the interests of transparency on a specific example that the Committee was aware of and refused to act upon. I would expect Fae and other editors (especially LGBT editors) would be wanting transparent answers here now, before deciding if they wish to act. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 07:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You're invited! New England Wikimedia General Meeting
Message delivered by Dominic at 09:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Note: You can remove your name from this meetup invite list here.

Request
Hi Brad.

Please could either an arbitartor or a clerk semiprotect the talk pages of the current review case? There has been too much disruption by Echigo mole/A.K.Nole and Mikemikev and this is becoming tiring. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania Admin panel
Hello Newyorkbrad,


 * I'm on vacation this week with limited online time and access (I shouldn't be here now!), returning to New York on Tuesday. I'll try to get to this by your deadline but may, as you suggest is possible, need another couple of days. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost
Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

bump
Hi Brad. Since you're the first arb I've seen around today - thought I'd poke you. Could you have a look at the arb mail please? Thanks. — Ched : ?  21:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * someone got it. ty. — Ched : ?  22:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Precious

 * On this day PumpkinSky's Easter egg tree and my Bach cantata mentioning an approach for peace are featured together on the Main page, enjoy! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Michael Rodak, Jr.


The article Michael Rodak, Jr. has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unsourced for five years. No evidence of notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cresix (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

David Price (soccer)
Newyorkbrad sorry to bother you but by mistake (I'm useless) my IP address and my old username, David Price (Liverpool)have been used on David Price (soccer). Can these be deleted or can my view history page be locked? --PAL1234 (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)