User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2008/Apr

Question about your comments on an ANI thread

Hey Brad, you posted on this thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#SPEEDY_and_USER-FICATION that a user cannot move an article to userspace but can copy it to work on it. Although I understand that editors often copy work to userspace to re-write sections or even whole articles, I am concerned that doing this to an article in AFD has GFDL problems since even if clear edit summaries are left the original work fails to properly attribute any other editors if the article is deleted from the mainspace. If the article is later returned to the mainspace without undeleting the original work there will appear to be only one contributor and if it's not then it's simply a GFDL violation in userspace. When pages are at an XfD, I consider it a proper option to userfy but never to copy the article and I commonly take the position at MfD that ordinary copies of deleted articles should be deleted out of hand and only when the full history if preserved is the copy/move OK - normally accomplished by moving the article at the time the XfD closes. Could you help me understand your position as I know you have a lot more experience here? Maybe I just didn't understand the comment. Thanks.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 14:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't claim any special expertise in this area. The crux of my view was simply that if a user's copying an article or page on XfD to userspace results ultimately in an improved article or page that will survive XfD rather than be deleted, I assumed that would be win/win for everybody. If there is a substantial history for GFDL purposes, that can be addressed when the page is moved back to mainspace (or other location outside userspace). Also, I always assumed that "userfy" is an option for pages in Wikipedia or other spaces but not really for articles—and in that context, the alternative to the user copying the article to have it to work on in case it is deleted, is an alternative to his or her having to chase down an administrator after-the-fact for a copy of the deleted page. But I will give the points you have made some thought. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Onion

There's layers to you

I never knew.

This is absolutely brilliant. How long did that whole thing take you? Daniel (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. I've been humbled, in a good way. Brilliant work! – ClockworkSoul 13:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both very much for the kind words. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

SVGs

Answered as best I can at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2/Proposed decision#Recent incident. MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. This and the other comments there were quite helpful. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised it hasn't happened already

Well done.

		The Surreal Barnstar
		For a most amazing poem. Stifle (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Seconded! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Privatemusings and BLPs

Would it be easier to just amend his BLP ruling to say "except when removing BLP vios and vandalism", something to that effect, if the sanction otherwise has merit? Lawrence § t/e 20:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, probably, but I would want to check into whether the scope of the sanction should indeed be maintained. I was not on the committee when the Privatemusings case was decided and I recall that I did have some mental reservations about the severity of the remedies (although that may have had more to do with the 90-day complete ban of this user from Wikipedia, which is expired now). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Dear Sir or Madam, Have you, members of your committee or Mr. Wales strongly considered banning anonymous IPs from contributing to articles and compelling people to register first. I notice there is an epidemic of vandalism on Wikipedia articles--and virtually all of them are from anonymous IPs. Here is an insidious one from a school registered IP where presumably a student vandalised an article on pharaoh Seti I: [1] It escaped detection from VandalBot. It took me many many edits to remove this vandalism since the Vandal continued to vandalise the article several more times. (I couldn't just click Undo) I firmly believe that if you force people to make the effort to register, you would cut down on the number of vandalism problems significantly. This is my honest opinion. I want Wikipedia to be open but not 'too open' to vandals to attack important articles. I am not advocating the stricter Citizendium approach where one person determines what stays or goes from an article. I am just tired of the persistent vandalism--it undermines the whole integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism is not a grey issue--it is a black or white one. Have you discussed this in your committee? Thank You, Fabian from Canada Leoboudv (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful message. However, I disagree with your conclusion that Wikipedia would be better off if we disallowed anonymous editing. As much of a problem as vandalism from IPs is, the fundamental attraction of our site is that we are "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," and that includes having an easy entry-level editing capability that turns readers into editors and leads to the continuing growth of our contributor base.

I offer myself as an example. My first edit as an anon was to William Rehnquist on the day that he died. A friend asked me a question about Rehnquist, and I didn't quickly know the answer to it, so I googled his name and the Wikipedia article on him was one of the first hits so I opened it. In the article, I quickly found the information I was looking for, but I also noticed that it contained a mistake—so on a whim I clicked on "edit this page" and fixed the mistake. (As it happens, my edit was immediately reverted—which was a little bit annoying, because I knew I was right—but I replaced the edit using a more detailed edit summary, and this time it stuck, and I believe the sentence I added at the time is still in the article.)

I enjoyed being able to change and add to an article that interested me, and after doing similar things a few more times I found myself drawn to register an account. On the other hand, if anonymous editing weren't allowed, it's very unlikely that I would have bothered to make my first edit, and I doubt that I ever would have become a registered user. Multiply my experience by that of many others and this is the reason why I am strongly opposed to disallowing anonymous editing. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir or Madam, I admit that I too started making edits anonymously before I registered. But if vandals start to think that they can vandalise Wikipedia at will, it will be very frustrating for Wikipedia contributors who care about the quality and accuracy of your articles. There should at least be ONE rule here--either permanently ban vandals who have been warned two or three times to stop their activities but still persist or place lengthy bans lasting not just 30 or 31 hours but something closer to 4 or 6 months. Here is a classic example of an anonymous IP who engages in this activity: [2] Despite being banned for 30 hours, the vandal comes back and attacks other articles. If you monitor his/her talk page, you can see that this person has angered many members of Wikipedia...but still gets away with his activities since there is no permanent or lengthy ban in place. You cannot be lenient or liberal with this abuser. It is good to get contributions from anonymous editors but some of them are incorrigible. Wikipedia is better off without them. I hope you can see my point. Thank You, Fabian Leoboudv (talk) 05:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, people don't always keep the same IP address. A lot of people have dynamic IPs, which change every time they disconnect and reconnect to the internet. Even those with static IPs can change ISP or otherwise end up with a new IP address. This results in new people being assigned the blocked IPs, so that, if lengthy blocks were made of IP addresses, potentially productive contributors would be unable to edit. David Mestel^(Talk) 21:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem with arbitration decision

NYB, I need you to look at WP:AE, the discussion I am having with PHG. I want you to see what happens when an arbitration decision leaves too much weasel room. This conflict has only been intensified by the decision. Who is now going to step in and help resolve things? How many times do I have to show that PHG is falsifying sources and that he refuses to accept any sort of criticism? Jehochman ^Talk 15:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been following this closely. I'm travelling this weekend but when I get home will read the latest, and I know other arbitrators are doing the same. It may be that a much more restrictive remedy is needed. On the other hand, I don't know that the problem is necessarily that our original decision allowed "too much weasel room," so much as that PHG has failed to be guided by the ruling. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 19:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Dear Sir or Madam, Have you, members of your committee or Mr. Wales strongly considered banning anonymous IPs from contributing to articles and compelling people to register first. I notice there is an epidemic of vandalism on Wikipedia articles--and virtually all of them are from anonymous IPs. Here is an insidious one from a school registered IP where presumably a student vandalised an article on pharaoh Seti I: [3] It escaped detection from VandalBot. It took me many many edits to remove this vandalism since the Vandal continued to vandalise the article several more times. (I couldn't just click Undo) I firmly believe that if you force people to make the effort to register, you would cut down on the number of vandalism problems significantly. This is my honest opinion. I want Wikipedia to be open but not 'too open' to vandals to attack important articles. I am not advocating the stricter Citizendium approach where one person determines what stays or goes from an article. I am just tired of the persistent vandalism--it undermines the whole integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism is not a grey issue--it is a black or white one. Have you discussed this in your committee? Thank You, Fabian from Canada Leoboudv (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful message. However, I disagree with your conclusion that Wikipedia would be better off if we disallowed anonymous editing. As much of a problem as vandalism from IPs is, the fundamental attraction of our site is that we are "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," and that includes having an easy entry-level editing capability that turns readers into editors and leads to the continuing growth of our contributor base.

I offer myself as an example. My first edit as an anon was to William Rehnquist on the day that he died. A friend asked me a question about Rehnquist, and I didn't quickly know the answer to it, so I googled his name and the Wikipedia article on him was one of the first hits so I opened it. In the article, I quickly found the information I was looking for, but I also noticed that it contained a mistake—so on a whim I clicked on "edit this page" and fixed the mistake. (As it happens, my edit was immediately reverted—which was a little bit annoying, because I knew I was right—but I replaced the edit using a more detailed edit summary, and this time it stuck, and I believe the sentence I added at the time is still in the article.)

I enjoyed being able to change and add to an article that interested me, and after doing similar things a few more times I found myself drawn to register an account. On the other hand, if anonymous editing weren't allowed, it's very unlikely that I would have bothered to make my first edit, and I doubt that I ever would have become a registered user. Multiply my experience by that of many others and this is the reason why I am strongly opposed to disallowing anonymous editing. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir or Madam, I admit that I too started making edits anonymously before I registered. But if vandals start to think that they can vandalise Wikipedia at will, it will be very frustrating for Wikipedia contributors who care about the quality and accuracy of your articles. There should at least be ONE rule here--either permanently ban vandals who have been warned two or three times to stop their activities but still persist or place lengthy bans lasting not just 30 or 31 hours but something closer to 4 or 6 months. Here is a classic example of an anonymous IP who engages in this activity: [4] Despite being banned for 30 hours, the vandal comes back and attacks other articles. If you monitor his/her talk page, you can see that this person has angered many members of Wikipedia...but still gets away with his activities since there is no permanent or lengthy ban in place. You cannot be lenient or liberal with this abuser. It is good to get contributions from anonymous editors but some of them are incorrigible. Wikipedia is better off without them. I hope you can see my point. Thank You, Fabian Leoboudv (talk) 05:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, people don't always keep the same IP address. A lot of people have dynamic IPs, which change every time they disconnect and reconnect to the internet. Even those with static IPs can change ISP or otherwise end up with a new IP address. This results in new people being assigned the blocked IPs, so that, if lengthy blocks were made of IP addresses, potentially productive contributors would be unable to edit. David Mestel^(Talk) 21:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem with arbitration decision

NYB, I need you to look at WP:AE, the discussion I am having with PHG. I want you to see what happens when an arbitration decision leaves too much weasel room. This conflict has only been intensified by the decision. Who is now going to step in and help resolve things? How many times do I have to show that PHG is falsifying sources and that he refuses to accept any sort of criticism? Jehochman ^Talk 15:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been following this closely. I'm travelling this weekend but when I get home will read the latest, and I know other arbitrators are doing the same. It may be that a much more restrictive remedy is needed. On the other hand, I don't know that the problem is necessarily that our original decision allowed "too much weasel room," so much as that PHG has failed to be guided by the ruling. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 19:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

2+2=5

About the Alison thing that happened a couple days ago (well its still kinda happening at least one article is still protected so that it is stuck with what might be politely described as "inferior edits", I might also be tempted to calling them vandilism supported by the high ups). You said no to Dan.T's question, which is clearly incorrect, that is whats going on, obviously correct and sourced articles, or even Categories which the article itself describe the computer to belong to, are being removed because the guy who made them was a jerk to one of your friends. A real jerk, alright, if I saw him in real life ==I== might be tempted to smack him (right now, and for the past decade and half, I've been rather depressed, into "self hurt" at times [I take that to mean stabbing, cutting and suicidal thoughts, although being Canadian I've also hit myself in the head with a canoe paddle, eh]), but that doesn't mean I'd delete the truth and say hes wrong when hes right. I certainly wouldn't waste more energy on taking away from articles than it takes to verify, check and improve the article in the proper fashion, which has happened with the whole Majorly thing, several reverts from SirFozzy over the simplest things (the things to watch out for the most as I remember my Caesar). I don't mean to be confrontational, I certainly don't mean to say you people all suck horribly (I spent the last few hours reading up on a couple of Admins schedule over the last month, banning idiots who think its morally wrong for an interracial couple to exist, and thinks that saying that and that Jerry Seinfield is a "whiny kike" do not consitute hate crimes and that whole Mantanmoreland thing), but stuff like this is why a bot will sign my name and it will be numbers instead of words, the commisioned types are destroying Wikipedias goal of providing free, correct information, and your not even admitting it when its in your face. Ignore this if you want, don't bother replying here or on my page, I don't see any reason to talk anymore, probably just argue pointlessly, and then I get banned and those idiots in the Order of the Dragon will site some Zulu about the imagery of a European military order, or a dude who called them pagans and quit the order and warred against it, 20-30 before it was made. And then you revert all my improvements because I'm an asshole and everything I say is obviously wrong and then the Bosnian-Zulu alliance wins (making sense is highly overrated outside of articles I find, some peoples I've noticed seem to think overrated inside them too).

What the heck

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration&diff=203524066&oldid=203467356

I am curious how should I interpret this. Suggestions? -- Cat ^chi? 17:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the arbitrators' comments say it all. The person is banned, the sockpuppet account has been blocked—there's nothing else that we can do. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ack! I linked to the wrong case. Here is the right one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration&diff=203526852&oldid=203525601

I can't quite make heads or tails of it.

-- Cat ^chi? 18:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Block of 199.254.212.44

Thanks for blocking 199.254.212.44; someone using this IP address has been targeting me by doing personal attacks towards me. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  19:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hoping you can help

I think this is a bit of a long shot, but since you have served as a clerk to the Arbitrators in the past I hope you may remember.

I believe there was an Arbitration case 2-3 years ago, and one of the issues brought up was a user's habit of editing redirects after pages were moved (e.g. changing [[REDIRECT]] to [[redirect]]) which prevented the move being undone without administrator assistance. Unfortunately I cannot remember at all who the RfAR was against, or when it was, and I am having great difficulty tracking it down. Do you have any recollection of this case? 134.103.184.81 (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You may be thinking of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming conventions, in which this issue was discussed in the Workshop. Hope this helps. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK#Reversal of irreversible page moves also, maybe? Daniel (talk) 05:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. That one was before my time. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Thank you for your help. I've sent you an email.--JRona (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Got it and I will respond when I have a chance to look at the matter in a little more detail. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. If you have any questions please ask. It was a much longer email, initially, but I cut a lot out before sending. JRona (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

O receiver of many requests...

Could you train your eyes on this article and perhaps assure me that I'm not on the road to this sad outcome? My concern is that there is some other sort of metric for this article than the one I have been attempting to use (accurate use of references, developing an appropriate balance in the article while staying within WP:BLP, etc). I don't want to end up in the penalty box through good intentions, so any advice would be appreciated. Your particular expertise could be handy in correcting any issues in the use of the first reference particularly. Thanks! (PS I know you are busy, and get a half dozen requests like this per day. If you simply can't, then no worries.) Avruch ^T 00:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This article has a very long and contentious history and has been the subject of extensive OTRS requests by the subject. I have not followed all the details but you might wish to consult with User:Fred Bauder who is up-to-speed on the matter. If you want to follow up on this, please contact me by e-mail. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Good stuff :) - TwoOars 14:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I'm speechless with how brilliant that poem is. And no I'm not just sucking up because I'm on AE.  ;) That was some exceptional writing, Brad, well done!  :) I smiled, I thought, I appreciated the wit and enjoyed the rhymes. Doesn't get much better than that! --Elonka 02:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That was freakin' brilliant. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 20:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"--Father Goose (talk) 05:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice poem, it was great! :) Apis 22:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Please trim your statement on requests for arbitration

Thank you for making a statement in an Arbitration application on requests for arbitration. We ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Please trim your statement accordingly. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence. Neat, concisely presented statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee. Dmcdevit·t 04:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC) (Who absolutely could not resist the fun. ;-) )

Jeezums, stop being so verbose, Newyorkbrad. *Cremepuff222* 19:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration - Requests for clarification

Hi, I know you're very busy, but I'd noticed that you haven't posted anything at the new Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Clarifications and motions page. Were you aware of the page split, and is it added to your watchlist? The page could definitely benefit from some more attention, as there are some requests which have been sitting there unattended for quite some time. Thanks, --Elonka 05:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of the page split (though I do not agree with it), and will be contributing to the various discussions, including Franco-Mongol Alliance which I suspect is the one currently at the forefront of your attention. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes, since that one was started as a request for sanctions against me, even though I know that there is no merit to it, I still naturally enough check it each day to see its current status. Which has been two long weeks.  :/ But at least the corresponding AE thread was closed, so that has reduced the stress level a bit. I'll be glad when the Clarification thread gets resolved as well. --Elonka 22:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason the thread has not yet been closed is that we are still considering whether to take any action against PHG as a committee, as opposed to allowing the enforcement procedure to address any continuing issues. To the best of my knowledge, no sanctions against you are being considered by anyone. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, even though I figured that was probably the case, it does help to receive reassurance, thanks. --Elonka 22:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Brad, given your helpful clarification here, at your convenience, could you or some impartial delegate please comment on my own failure to understand how these processes work, which I mentioned at RCAM and its talk? I would think I should take ArbCom silence as indicating that my concerns have no real weight with them, but it would help if I could understand why. Stating them a bit more partially, (1) Is it normal for ArbCom to endorse one editor's charges as wholly "confirm"ed without independently stating what particulars were confirmed or addressing another editor's similar countercharges? (2) Is it normal for one editor to be held very strictly to a 500-word limit, including three different clerks refactoring, while other editors are not? (3) Is it normal for ArbCom to vote on a contentious clarification case without making a further evidence page available (i.e. are clarifications expected to be always answerable upon 500 words from everyone)? (4) Given the prior questions, if ArbCom's answer should turn out to be responsive only to the counterproposals and not to the initial proposal, would that be normal as well? Verbum sat. JJB 17:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

My RfA...

Thank you...

...for your participation in my RFA, which closed with 85 supports, 2 neutrals and 1 oppose. I'm extremely grateful for all the the kind comments from so many brilliant Wikipedians I've come to respect and admire, as well as many others I've not yet had the pleasure of working with, and I'll do my best to put my shiny new mop and bucket to good use! Once again, thank you ;)
EyeSerene^talk 16:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that accurate?

You asked, is that accurate? Yes. And reverted by Nick. Art LaPella (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost poetry

Two words: hell yeah :) cheers, --Ouro (blah blah) 06:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You might appreciate this

http://www.audioholics.com/news/industry-news/blue-jeans-strikes-back

Thatcher 15:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Status

On a break. My apologies to anyone who left a message (here or via e-mail) to which I have not had a chance to respond. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

AN/I discussion about User:Michael Hardy

I have dragged your edits into this discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Harrasment/stalking by User:Michael Hardy. Sorry, but you were handy. Darkspots (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Status

Limited activity at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn

My intent is to withdraw the case now that things are clarified. Basically what I wanted looked at was disclosed by Flo (it has apparently already been looked at) . Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Since I've recused myself concerning this request for arbitration, I will leave its status for other arbitrators and/or clerks to address. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see you are back

I consider you an integral part of this site, and every day you are gone is a loss. Daniel Brandt has become the Wikipedia Review's Ralph Nader - an egomaniacal embarrassment to any honorable legacy he may have once had. For the creator of NameBase to go around complaining about Wikipedia's BLP on him is astounding hypocrisy from a man who now hits out at anyone in a bizarre attempt to get people to notice him. That's my opinion, and you likely disagree; regardless, I'm glad you are still here. --David Shankbone 15:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. No comment re Mr. Brandt. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Request

Hold any messages until I post here in the morning, please.

Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad

For once I'll be brief. Due to some external events, which have the potential to affect not just me but many uninvolved people, I will not be able to continue editing.

I would like to thank everyone I have worked with here. The community has extended me extraordinary kindness and support. I am sorry for the pages that never got written and the FA that never got done. I apologize to the 552 people who voted for me for breaking my commitment to them, and to anyone whose case I never had the chance to review.

My thanks in advance for what any of you may write here. I request that no explicit reference be made here or elsewhere to the incidents prompting my departure.

The first available steward is requested to desysop this account without requiring any further postings or formalities. The Arbitration Clerks will remove my name from the list of arbitrators and per precedent will strike any votes I have cast on pending cases or matters.

Goodbye.

Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)