User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2018/Nov

That's
true:-) Or ought to have been used; though on retrospection I agree with SN54129 that I was more robust than necessary and that probably stemmed from my very-dim view of the request which managed to go past the bright-line for any assumption of good faith, from my side.

And, your analyses from the garbs of an arb, which were often profoundly insightful, will be missed. &#x222F; WBG converse 16:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Come on...
...you know you want to re-up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I do? Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I just bet my life savings on it (fortunately, I spend all my money).What would we do without you? The last time you took a break from ArbCom I was nervous and jittery the whole time. The doctors said something about drinking too much Coca-Cola, but I know it was your absence.I'll be watching the candidate's page with bated breath for the next day or so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll second BMK - you really are the Gibbs of ArbCom Dax   Bane  03:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * +1. I think. This Gibbs? --GRuban (talk) 16:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that one Dax   Bane  19:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I've now served as an arbitrator for a total of almost nine years (2008–2014 and 2017–2018). When I ran in 2016 after two years off the Committee, I was elected&mdash;but even then, many people I respect questioned my decision to return. I've now served two more years and while I've added value to the Committee's work, it's time for me to again step away from arbitrating and perhaps even from active administrating, and get back to mainspace, from which I've been largely distracted during my terms. I'm pleased to see that two of the strongest incumbent arbitrators are now running for reelection, which will aid with institutional continuity. (In fact, my biggest concern about the current field of candidates is the lack of strong newcomers.) My thanks to the three of you, but I do not plan to run again this year. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all of it. And, yes, please on content, I recently came across Ableman v. Booth and was disappointed it did not seem address the historical context of the Fugitive Slave Act and how America was coming apart (I added a smidge) and I do not know if editing law might be more like your day job, so edit something else -- just highlighting, we need to work on the content all over the place, please! Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Newyorkbrad --GRuban (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Some things never change. Thanks, but not this year. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * You know you’re a good mainspace editor when you don’t know who the current arbitrators are. Jehochman Talk 02:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

"Fishing expedition" article
Greetings, since you are the only editor who works/edits in legal-related matters I wanted to ask for some assistance on Fishing expedition. I came across the article and while googling it says that it's apparently a noteworthy concept the article currently relies entirely on questionable tabloid sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much
for |this. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Fred Bauder and others
Per Arbitration/Policy this is a formal request for you to recuse per the reasons stated at Special:Permalink/870873101. Adverting to BD2412's statement in Jytdog's Arbitration case, I think we can all agree that FP@S's posts to Fred Bauder and Crazynas' talk were

threats, intimidation, repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention, and repeated personal attacks

FPAS' statement

to save you the embarrassment, I have re-removed the material

is clear harassment, using his rank to overbear an editor in his own userspace. He claims to be reverting a "banned user", but what he actually did was to revert Fred and Crazynas. The "banned user" claim was not backed by any evidence, and FP@S was attempting to impose it using his administrator status. As a WP:INVOLVED administrator the assessment should have been left to someone else. 86.146.194.130 (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Motion denied. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm nice phrase. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Arbcom
Arbitration/Requests/Case. Fram (talk) 11:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * ArbCom's version of the if a tree falls in a forest paradox: if ArbCom bans someone, and doesn't tell anyone, are they really banned?  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's the right analogy here. The editor in question definitely knew he was banned, and then briefly unbanned, and then banned again (as he still is). Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)