User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2012/Mar
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Please could you clarify for me?
I've made a note here about something you said at the ArbCom (Civility Enforcement) case. I think I have understood you correctly, but I'm really not at all sure. What I think you said seemed to be in agreement with what I felt happened with the issue on the page on which that diff appears; was that the kind of thing that you meant?
Just to clarify, I'm not seeking any kind of official action here, I just want to be absolutely sure that I've got the interpretation right. Many thanks for your time. Pesky (talk) 10:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'll respond to this after I get home on Thursday or Friday. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Deceased User:Kbthompson
This deceased user's page is protected. It has two red-links on it that are attracting unwanted bots to his talk page. Would you kindly delete the redlinks? They are:
- Template:UKLP and
- Next month's portal test page
Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- It looks like someone else already got to this request. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
You're invited to DC Meetup #28!
| DC Meetup #28: March 10 at Capitol City Brewery | |
|---|---|
 DC Wikipedia meetup #28 is on Saturday, March 10, 2012, from 7pm on at Capitol City Brewery in downtown DC. (11th & H St NW). Join us for an evening of socializing, chatting about Wikipedia, discussing Wikimedia DC activities and the latest preparations for Wikimania 2012. (RSVP + details) | |
Note: You can remove your name from the DC meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot (talk) 03:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC), on behalf of User:Aude
You're invited: Smithsonian Institution Women in Science Edit-a-Thon!
| Who should come? You should. Really. | |
|---|---|
 |
She Blinded Me with Science: Smithsonian Women in Science Edit-a-Thon will be held on Friday, March 30, 2012 at the Smithsonian Archives in Washington, D.C. This edit-a-thon will focus on improving and writing Wikipedia content about women from the Smithsonian who contributed to the sciences. It will be followed by a happy hour meetup! We look forward to seeing you there!
|
Sarah (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Arbitration story for The Signpost
Hi Brad! I am beginning work on a story for The Signpost, similar to an article I wrote last year, this one concerning the voting patterns of newly-elected arbitrators and the procedures behind the creation of a PD. While my work has not yet begun, you will be able to find the draft story here. I would like to know if you would be willing to answer some questions (via email or talk page, whichever you prefer) regarding the methods the Committee (and you) use in coming to a decision. I am curious to hear about everything from (i) how the drafters are decided to (ii) how much email discussion occurs before the posting of a decision.
Your assistance would enhance the purpose of the article, which is to make individual arbitrators more visible to the greater community rather than a monolithic block of 'deciders'. Additionally, I want to provide a bit more transparency in the procedures of the Committee, to the extent you feel comfortable discussing it.
If you are fine with me asking you such questions here or via email, please leave a note on my talk page. Wishing you the best, Lord Roem (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Bump.
Lord Roem (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Responding on your talk, as requested. Short answer: Yes. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks! I appreciate the help. I am dividing the stories into two, one on new arbitrators, and the other looking into the procedures of the Committee. If you have any advice/comments/questions on the articles as the drafts come into being, please feel free to let me know. Don't feel rushed in getting these answers in, as I plan to post a second arbitration story on 3-19 with some of your replies. The questions are listed below.
Signpost article questions
1. Brad, you have been a member of the Arbitration Committee since 2008. What have been the biggest changes you've observed since that time. Obviously, case load has decreased, but the complexity of matters brought to the Committee have increased. Do you think the Committee is handling its work efficiently, or are there specific areas of improvement?
2. How would you self-describe your approach to either drafting or voting on a PD? Do you look at the evidence page first to see what the big picture is, or construct a mental timeline of events, etc.?
3. On the Committee itself, once a case is accepted, how are the drafters for the PD chosen?
4. From the case being accepted to the close of the evidence and workshop phases, how much internal discussion occurs on the matter? Is it kept until after the posting of a PD, or is it continuous throughout?
5. How would you describe what its like to be on the ArbCom mailing list? Do you have an estimate of how much email you get on a daily basis? How does this reading compare to your RL work? 
6. Recently, the Committee has supported the idea of binding community discussions on issues like titles for abortion-related articles (Abortion case). Is this a practice you see as increasing in frequency in the future?
7. What, if any, changes would you make to ArbCom procedure and practice? What deserves the most look by committee members?
Again, let me thank you for working through the questions. As I've told the other arbitrators I've interviewed, I'm not posting the entirety of your response, but will use it to provide more depth for my article. My deadline is not for another week in terms of this second arbitration story, so please don't feel rushed. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Gentle poke
Any input? Pesky (talk) 08:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- My apologies for the delay in taking a look at this as promised. My offline state of busy-ness as flared up once again over the past few days.
- I've read through the page you referred me to, although I have to admit that I haven't read through all of the links and diffs that are cited on the page, which I anticipate (based on my experience checking comparable numbers of links and diffs in arbitration cases) would take me a couple of hours.
- I gather that your concern expressed here is that the administrator who closed the discussion about you had previously expressed an opinion in the discussion. Without studying the entire discussion and the background to it, it would be difficult for me to evaluate whether the administrator's prior comment was a statement of a clear opinion in the discussion or a stray remark.
- The practice of having someone "close" a discussion on AN or ANI, when a clear decision (ban or not, etc.) is not required, is a comparatively recent one. In the context of banning someone, the rule that an "involved" administrator doesn't do the closing clearly implies. In the context of a "discussion" thread, the rule and best practice are less clear. For example, often the person who starts a thread winds up closing it when his or her concern has been resolved to his or her satisfaction, even though almost always that person will have expressed some opinion of what should be done.
- Please also note that as far as I can tell, the "admonition" you received has no formal standing, especially if it was subsequently withdrawn.
- I know I haven't dealt definitively with the issue you wanted me to take a look at, but I hope these observations might help some. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- It's helpful to a certain extent. My own feeling is that someone who has expressed such a strong view (without checking the background) shouldn't close a discussion in line with their own view, and especially in a way for which there was no consensus. But if it's "technically OK" to do that, then so be it. Pesky (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
You've got mail
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Received and responded, with apologies for the delay. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I knew it
We humans are on to your nefarious plans of human–bot unity. 28bytes (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- you will be assimilated - resistance is futile. — Ched : ? 15:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
You commented here and a bunch of ARBCOM members followed your lead. You are correct, in my opinion, regarding the question raised before you. However one aspect of potential conflict was not raised and I would like your input on my comment. I bring this personally to you only because everyone there followed your lead and because you may not have seen my comment subsequent to your comment. If you saw it and chose not to comment, that's fine of course, and disregard this message. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
That secret formula for free clean-burning energy you asked me about earlier...
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
--Despayre (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
RE:
Meepsheep is a good friend of mine from ED and several IRCs. Whether or not I agree with his disruptive actions on this site, I still felt like listing him :) I hope that is clear? -badmachine 23:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)