User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2012/Jun

Thanks for !voting

	at my successful RFA
	Thank you, Newyorkbrad/Archive/2012, for !voting at my successful RFA; I am humbled that you put your trust in me. I grant you this flower, which, if tended to properly, will grow to be the fruit of Wikipedia's labours. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Email to ArbCom

Has ArbCom received the Email that I've sent to them on Saturday? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

We did receive it. Someone responded to this inquiry on their page long ago, so this is just for the record. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop#F.C3.A6_has_used_multiple_accounts.2C_not_all_declared – I'm just letting you know that you've been mentioned in an ArbCom-related discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Belated thanks for this courtesy notice. I've seen the mention of my name and have been following the discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Sanctions for Cyprus?

Hi. In your opinion, do any of the existing sanctions apply to the general topic of Cyprus (including, in particular, the de facto partition of the island)? And if not, what sort (if any) of sanctions do you think might be appropriate, and what would need to be done to make them happen?

The Northern Cyprus and Nicosia articles, for example, have been plagued for years by disruptive editing (much of it involving banned editors returning again and again as socks). It seems to me that there is at least as good a case for putting this topic area under officially increased scrutiny as has already been done for Kosovo, Palestine, or Barack Obama.

Given the relationship between Cyprus on the one hand, and Greece and Turkey on the other, it was recently suggested that perhaps Cyprus legitimately falls under the umbrella of the existing Balkans ("Macedonia") discretionary sanctions — though, to me, that seems a bit of a stretch.

I harbour no illusions that declaring sanctions will instantly and effortlessly make the problem go away, but it might call greater attention to the issue and encourage non-involved admins to feel more at liberty to intervene more quickly to keep things down to a dull roar.

What would you suggest? — Richwales 05:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Addendum to what I just wrote: I realize a lot can be done (and is already being done) in the Cyprus-related articles in terms of identifying and blocking socks (one banned user, in particular, seems simply unwilling to give up). But I think it would be beneficial to give admins more leeway to take action more quickly against disruptive editors on these pages, without first needing to be convinced that they are in fact banned socks. Hence the idea of official sanctions for the topic. — Richwales 07:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any discretionary sanctions enacted by either the Arbitration Committee or the community that would apply to Cyprus-related articles. I think trying to categorize Cyprus geographically or politically as part of the Balkans would be a bit of a stretch. If you believe that discretionary sanctions would be helpful in keeping good order on the Cyprus-related articles, you can either submit a request for arbitration to the Committee on WP:RfAr, or start a discussion on the correct noticeboard (which I assume is AN but someone is free to correct me). I can't say anything about the merits of such a request because I haven't followed the editing history on those articles, although I assume there are serious issues based on what you have said. I hope this is helpful. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Perth case

In the comments of that proposal, a suggestion has been made by someone else that I should be a party to this case so my actions are reviewed; although I think that is ridiculous, please opine on that suggestion too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've commented there as requested. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Having reviewed it again, although I still hold the view that a completely disinterested admin would have been more ideal in these particular circumstances (and that this should be signaled to the administrator concerned), what happened was not so extreme as to warrant a desysop in these circumstances. If the proposal can be treated or marked as withdrawn, that would be appreciated. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You can indicate right under the proposal you made that you are withdrawing it. You can also strikethrough the text if you prefer. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Attack page block

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I have replied there. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Research project relating to the Wikimedia Strategy Process

Dear Newyorkbrad,

My name is Gordon Mueller-Seitz and my colleague, Leonhard Dobusch, and I are currently engaged in a research project relating to the Wikimedia Strategy Process that took place in 2009-2010. Our key interest is to explore how this strategy process actually unfolded.

In this connection, we started with interviewing WM personnel and promoters such as Eugene Kim in a first step. By now we want to broaden our insights in a second step and we would like to kindly inquire if it was possible to make a short telephone interview with you concerning the WM strategy process? If yes, we would very appreciate it if you could suggest a date/time that would suit you and the telephone number we could reach you from April onwards.

Thank you very much for a brief reply. We look forward to hearing from you.

Best wishes,
Gordon and Leonhard

--
Dr. Gordon Mueller-Seitz
Freie Universitaet Berlin, Chair for Inter-firm Cooperation
School of Business & Economics, Dept of Management
Boltzmannstrasse 20, 14195 Berlin (Germany)
Tel.: ++49 30 838 56359, Fax: ++49 30 838 56808
89.204.155.71 (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

If speaking with me is still of interest, please send me an e-mail and I will respond. Good luck with your project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I would still like to talk to you, here is my e-mail address (Gordon.Mueller-Seitz[at]fu-berlin.de) or let me know your e-mail address as I couldn´t find it here. Thank you very much! Gordon 89.204.154.38 (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll e-mail you after this weekend. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop (Return of access levels)

Hi Brad. I was about to comment on one of the proposed principles you posted, but note that the workshop is now closed so will drop a note here instead. Could 5 (Return of access levels) be rephrased to avoid the use of the word "pending"? I seem to recall that the use of this word in the Philwelch decision has caused confusion in the past given that some people understand the word to mean "imminent, about to happen" whereas others understand it to mean "awaiting conclusion, begun but not completed". I would appreciate a little more clarity as to when leaving in controversial circumstances is to be deemed. WJBscribe (talk) 09:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point ... you might want to drop this note on the wording of the principle to SirFozzie, as he's actually drafting the proposed decision. For this particular case I don't think it will matter, as the findings and remedies would spell out application of the principle in this particular case, but it's good to have clarity for the future as well (although it's always good to bear in mind that we can't possibly anticipate every possible situation that might arise). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia New York City Annual Meeting Sat Jun 30

Join us at Jefferson Market Library on Saturday starting at 1pm for our annual meeting and elections, details at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC!--Pharos (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)