User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2011/Mar

Moulton and the FeloniousMonk Story
Could you comment at User talk:AGK if you have a moment? Thanks, AGK  [&bull; ] 12:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The appropriate recourse for this user is an e-mail to the ban appeals subcommitee of the Arbitration Committee. In any such e-mail, he should bear in mind that most of the arbitrators may have little, if any, background on his case or situation, and accordingly should provide the relevant links. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Brad, are you aware that I am not in fact community banned. Rather IDCab, acting without community review, indef blocked me and falsely labeled it a "community ban."  I would like to have my grievance reviewed in public, if that is possible.  Also, it's not the FM pages I care about, but the pages in my userspace that FM munged and locked against me. —Moulton (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Moulton, you may email the Arbitration Committee and ask for a review of your block. Or you can continue to be blocked. Any further posts about this onwiki will likely result in blocks to your IPs. Youve been indulged to this point, but your insistence on ignoring your block and the advice you have been given does not serve you well.  Risker (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * He is not actually asking to be unblocked, but that FeloniousMonk's evidence pages be deleted. Am I right in saying that unless he was unblocked through the usual method (through BASC, that is), requests for such deletion will not usually be honoured? There is then the second issue that the pages are affecting his real-life activities (I do not know how convincing an argument that is, but in any case do not think this or any on-wiki page is the correct place to discuss such a private issue); if ArbCom decline the unblock, it would, I think, have to then consider the second argument that deletion is necessary on the basis that it is causing damage to him in real-life—which we try to avoid as a matter of doing no harm. I am not expressing an opinion on either issue, but would point out to Brad and Risker that there are two arguments at play here—of which, in my view, only one has been answered. AGK  [&bull; ] 19:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I misunderstood what his request was. It seems that he is not asking that FeloniousMonk's evidence pages be deleted, but that his userpage be restored to what it used to look like (eg. ). I've asked him to confirm that that is indeed what he is requesting; if it is, I will be disinclined to entertain this any longer. I have been hearing Moulton out thus far, in an attempt to give him some kind of chance to fully explain his grievances, but I am, like Risker, beginning to think that there is not a convincing case here. AGK  [&bull; ] 20:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Except to activate SUL, I have never asked to be unblocked. When I filed my request to ArbCom, that Anthøny proxied for me, I did not ask to be unblocked.  Rather I asked ArbCom if the RfC which IDCab filed was an instance of Due Process.  ArbCom declined to answer that question.  Six months later, Lar explained (and others concurred) that WP doesn't do due process.  His exact quote: "The thing is, the project doesn't DO due process. There is no reason to expect it. This is not a governance experiment, a society, or even fair."  About once I year I bother to ask if WP has evolved to an operational model more representative of 21st Century concepts of Due Process, Civil Rights, and Evidence-Based Reasoning.  I take it the answer remains as before.  —Moulton 04:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no more evolved into a 21st century governing system than it has evolved into a 21st century train station, or a 21st century automobile manufacturer, or a 21st century healthcare system. That is because it is none of those things and was never intended to become any of those things. Nor is this a debating society. That is enough now Moulton. Risker (talk) 04:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is never enough education, Risker. I am not here to debate.  Like everyone else here, my goal is to help fulfill the WMF Mission of empowering and engaging people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.  I appreciate that you are joining with me in that overarching educational mission with respect to crucial topics in Due Process, Civil Rights, Evidence-Based Reasoning, Restorative Justice, and Best Practices for Ethical Governance.  —Moulton 20:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost/2011-02-28/Arbitration statistics
I read your comments, regarding the trend of more disputes and other problems being resolved off-wiki by means of semi-formal discussion with the party or parties, on a recent WR thread. Those comments added a new dimension to my understanding of the arbitration process - and would, I'm sure, have been of interest to other editors who never sat on the committee. Could it be useful to make some commentary in the discussion section of the above Signpost article about that trend? Anything that gives insight into the off-wiki activities of ArbCom always makes good reading! AGK [&bull; ] 20:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (Placeholder; I will respond to this, but probably can't get to it tonight.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu motion
I noticed that you had refrained from voting on the Rodhullandemu motion, but have since commented at Wikipedia Review in the abstract about the issue. Might I ask why? Was it simply a time issue, or something else? NW ( Talk ) 15:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Purely a timing issue. I had participated in extensive discussions about this matter on the Arbitration Committee mailing list earlier in the week, but happened to be offline for several hours on Friday when the final decision was made.
 * (My comments in the WR thread were, as you noted, more abstract and were not intended to refer to this particular case. I will add that while some of the responses to my posts there were obnoxious, others are giving me significant food for thought.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless you are prepared to declare neutrality, which I now doubt, you have no business going to Wikipedia Review and contributing to discussions that are by definition "criticism of Wikipedia"; a more seasoned approach might be to maintain a dignified distance. WR is a known repository for editors who have been rejected by the community, and although they might have good reason for that, it does not improve the objective of improving Wikipedia. I'm amazed, frankly, because I do not see that you are going to persuade these people to anything. Rodhull  andemu  00:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI
Since you're posting on the Musical theatre talk page, I thought I would let you know that I posted a complaint at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, because Ronz continues to post to my talk page, even though I have requested that he/she not post there any more. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Rodhull andemu  02:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Received, responded, and forwarded as agreed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Archibald Butt
Hello! Your submission of Archibald Butt at the DYK April Fool's nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! KimChee (talk) 05:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll comment over the weekend. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu
Rodhull andemu  00:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

What's up?
You know Ssilvers personally. Could that be interfering with your judgement at Talk:Musical theatre?

I'm happy to explain myself in detail if it would help. --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you should focus on something else that would be significantly more useful to the project than quibbling endlessly about the links on that page. However, you are probably right that any administrator action in this matter would better be taken by another administrator. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll take that as an opportunity to offer a short explanation.
 * Much of what I do on Wikipedia is clean up inappropriate external links. Extremely rarely, editors decide to make a mountain out of the molehill of external links cleanup. That's the case with Musical theatre. I don't want it to continue with the related articles of WPMT, where similar cleanup is needed. I'm working to a clear stand - not a resolution as nice as it would be to have, but at least a stalemate that will make further cleanup go smoother.
 * Hiding external links as references goes way over the line of acceptable ways to clean up external links. It's the behavior of spammers. Personally, I'm concerned and embarrassed whenever I find editors trying to argue for such "references." Still, I've have found that sometimes a stalemate is the only short-term solution to such problems when editors are too tied up in WP:OWN problems, though more commonly the editors are blocked and we create consensus without them. --Ronz (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You have lost your sense of perspective regarding the external links on musical theater. You should really go and do something more productive, and I anticipate that if you persist in this fashion, an uninvolved administrator (I accept that I no longer qualify) will require you to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to find us talking past each other. --Ronz (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Given, I think it would best for me to ask you to identify what specifically about my behavior you find problematic enough to threaten me with a block? --Ronz (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me butting in here, but Ronz will probably recall that I have been active in helping to remove linkspam, and generally work to reduce inappropriate external links (although I have been letting that work slip lately). Ronz: yes, Musical theatre had too many ELs, and yes, it's great that they're cleaned up. However, what is the cost? Wikipedia is a collaborative project and the result of recent efforts on that page is that a few links have been removed, and a great deal of turmoil and irritation has been generated—all that trouble has been directed at excellent content builders . The article is clearly in good shape and is actively maintained by people who are absolutely not spamming or using Wikipedia for promotion, and my suggestion is that strident ELNO advocacy would be better applied in articles which do not have those characteristics. Johnuniq (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. I'm trying to wrap it up.
 * The article isn't in very good shape though, and the WP:OWN problems are at least partially to blame.
 * It's been a good, though painful, experience with working around WP:OWN problems. I never have much success with these problems. I've got a number of things I'll be doing different as a result.
 * And that gets back to my question for Newyorkbrad. Without an answer, I don't know for sure that my changes in approach will be enough. --Ronz (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with you that "the article isn't in very good shape"; I think it's a perfectly reasonable introduction to the topic. Further improvements, which are always welcome, in this case will be made primarily by adding content, rather than by quibbling about the content already there.
 * I really, really think you should drop your arguments about external links references in this article and focus on some entirely unrelated area for awhile. If you reread that talkpage a month from now, I think you will agree that for a time you lost your sense of perspective. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you even paying attention?
 * You've made your opinions of what I should do very, very clear. You've even threatened to back them with a block. Message received. Getting any rationale from you appears to be a waste of my time.
 * I've wrapped it up. I hope that's clear. Sorry that you don't like the way I've done so. If you're not interested in providing some assistance as to how I could do better in this and similar disputes, then why waste your time? --Ronz (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * When asking a question, it is usually best to read the replies, then take some to think about them. If you really want to know how to do better in similar disputes, please read what I wrote above. Johnuniq (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me be crystal clear: Please identify what specifically about my behavior you find problematic enough to make you threaten a block? --Ronz (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your extreme perseveration about relatively minor issues concerning nuances of link policy, to the distraction and detriment of actual article improvement, even after it was clear that consensus was against you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All just personal opinion. In contrast, the WP:OWN, WP:HARASS, WP:TAGTEAM, WP:AGF, WP:TALK, WP:EDITWAR, and WP:NPA problems were all very real.
 * So, as I repeatedly pointed out during the talk page discussions, I'm going to focus more effort on deescalating WP:OWN and similar behavioral problems. I see nothing from this discussion that will help me in doing so. --Ronz (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Wolfe Pack murder mystery?
What can you tell me about the Five Pups murder mystery happening in April? Are you going? How stuffy is it likely to be? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll be there. It won't be stuffy at all. It will be mystery-related, but not directly Wolfe-related (for that, come to the monthly book discussion instead). We can discuss further at the WP meetup on the 20th if you'll be there. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, yay. I'm definitely intrigued by it, and I have a friend who'll be visiting that week who also likes Wolfe. I might just come and drag him along. I'll pick your brain on the 20th wrt details :D A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk)

Ebionites 2
Newyorkbrad, can you put a reasonable time limit on requiring a response for participation in mediation, during the four week period the committee is holding arbitration in abeyance? I'm asking because there is a precedent for John Carter to run out the clock. He kept everyone waiting for a month for a response during informal mediation and then walked out on it. If he is not going to commit to working things out, let's get on with it. Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 04:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It probably makes the most sense for the mediator to survey whether the key parties are going to participate, and let us know. You are right that if the mediation isn't going to happen we will have to go back to opening the arbitration case. We will see, probably sooner rather than later. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've started a survey to that effect on my Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 04:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * After two days of being insulted and having my motives questioned, I can see that this last attempt at mediation is pointless. Let's get on with arbitration and put an end to this dispute.  This has been going on for 10 months now. Thanks. Ovadyah (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have reconsidered my position. I am willing to participate in mediation on the condition that we do it through formal mediation.  The mediation process needs to be kept confidential.  There is too much grandstanding going on and trying to score points that can be used later as leverage in arbitration. Ovadyah (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a little idea I had
I have had an idea that I am thinking about putting into action at a later occasion, and I thought that you might be the person to ask due to your profession as a lawyer and as a Arbcom member.

The idea I have, is to do kind of wikilawyering without being wikilawyering, if you understand. My idea is that users involved in an arbitration can ask me to review the case and analyze evidence before posting to the case page. This is going to be free of charge.

As said, this is just an idea. What do you think of this from the ethical point of view? Do to think it will it be appropriate to do? PaoloNapolitano (talk) 08:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting idea, but I don't think the best plan is just to hang out a shingle, as it were, advertising that you're available to assist parties to cases. For what it's worth, there was once (before I started editing) a group of users call the Association of Members Advocates (AMA), who apparently were intended to act as "counsel" to users who got involved in arbitration cases. This did not work out well, from what I've been told, and was discontinued. You might want to look up the historical page about the AMA and see what went wrong and try to avoid that.
 * A better plan, if you are interested in improving the arbitration process, would be to keep an eye on pages and cases that interest you, and comment on issues that arise, particularly where you have something to add that the parties or other editors haven't caught. If you make good contributions, over time people will come to solicit and respect your views. Perhaps I flatter myself, but that's more-or-less how I came to be known on those pages. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. Is it legal under American law to call yourself "lawyer", "advocate", "solicitor" or "barrister" without being certified? PaoloNapolitano (talk) 08:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

User:CoM
Hi, would you perhaps comment in this section I have opened, on the talk:Arbitration page here - thanks. I have opened this issue there as an unofficial request just to stimulate a little discussion about the situation but if you would also advise as to the correct method to officially request such an unblocking, thanks Off2riorob (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I'll take a close look at this and urge the other arbitrators to do the same, if we get an e-mail from ChildofMidnight advising that he's interested in returning to editing. If he's no longer interested in participating, then it's more likely a moot point. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks very much, I did send him/her an email asking the user just that question, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

BLP, ethnicity, gender
Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

Some say source requirements of ethnicity and gender of WP:EGRS don't apply to WP:BLP living persons, simply because the two words aren't in the policy. (Apparently, they think it should only apply to dead people.) I see that you have participated on this topic at the Village Pump.

They also are trying to remove the notability, relevance, and self-identification criteria at WT:EGRS, but that's another fight for another day, I'm simply too busy to watch two fronts at the same time.

We're on the 6th day. Traditionally, these polls go for 7; unless there's no obvious consensus, when we go for an additional 7 days. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Your talk page message.
Rodhull andemu  19:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

A question about presenting evidence in the new arbitration case
Newyorkbrad,

I’ve noticed that an arbitration case has recently been opened to examine the procedures used in arbitration enforcement. I’m of the opinion that arbitration enforcement for articles in the race and intelligence topic area has involved some of the same problems being discussed in this case, and I would like to present some evidence about that. However, the current sanctions against me state that I’m banned from the topic of race and intelligence on every page of Wikipedia, except for making AE reports and participating in discussions about my own editing. Presumably, this also prohibits me from presenting evidence involving the R&I topic in any arbitration case where I’m not an involved party.

It’s now been over six months since the close of the ARBR&I case, so according to the review of topic-bans decision, I have the option of applying to have my topic ban lifted now. Before I knew about the Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling case, I’d been intending to request that sometime in the next few months, most likely in April or May. However, the R&I decision states that I can only appeal sanctions against me to ArbCom a maximum of once every six months. This means that if I request for my topic ban to be narrowed so I can present evidence in the new case about arbitration enforcement on R&I topics, I’ll have to wait an additional six months before I can appeal the rest of my topic ban. Since I was intending to appeal my topic ban in April or May, I really don’t want to have to wait until September for this.

If I want to present evidence in the new case, my other option is to go ahead and request right now that my topic ban to be lifted entirely. But I’m concerned that if I request that, even if my request is granted, ArbCom might take long enough to make a decision about this that by then it’ll be too late for me to present evidence in the sanction handling case. I’m also not sure whether or not I’ve yet demonstrated my devotion to improving articles outside the R&I topic area enough that ArbCom would be willing to lift my ban.

I would appreciate some advice on what you think is the most reasonable course of action in this situation. You can look at to see what my editing has been like since the close of the R&I case. William Beebe has replaced Race and intelligence as my most edited article on Wikpedia, and more than half of my content edits are now outside of the R&I topic area. If I want to present evidence in the new case about arbitration enforcement on R&I topics, do you think it’s the best idea for me to request that my topic ban be lifted this point? Or is there some other way you’d suggest that it would be possible to present evidence about R&I enforcement in the new case, without delaying my ability to appeal my topic ban an additional six months? --Captain Occam (talk) 05:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have two suggestions. One is that you post the above to the evidence talkpage, where arbitrators will see your question and discuss it. You may cite this response as permission for you to make that post without it being a violation of restriction, in order that you can get the guidance you are looking for, although you should await the outcome of the discussion before posting anything further.
 * The other alternative is for you to e-mail your proposed evidence to the arbcom-l mailing list, with a copy of what you wrote above. If your evidence seems reasonably useful, I think permission would be granted for you to post it onwiki without it being deemed a violation of any restriction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for the advice. I think your first suggestion is the most useful to me, since I'd rather not take the time it would require write up my evidence about this issue when I don't yet know whether or not I'll be given permission to use it.  But I've gone ahead and followed your first suggestion to ask about this on the evidence talk page. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to have to ask you about this again, but it looks like I’m not going to be able to get advice about this from the other arbitrators by asking about it on the evidence talk page. The discussion in response to my question has now tapered off without any arbitrators participating in it. Hans Alder and Ludwigs2 both commented to say that they would like to more closely examine the manner in which EdJohnston sanctioned me at AE, but his sanctions prohibit me from presenting any evidence about this.

In his comments in the thread there, EdJohnston said that I can only present evidence related to the topic of race and intelligence if I appeal my topic ban. Can you offer me any advice about whether you think that’s a good idea at this stage, both in terms of whether ArbCom is likely to be willing to lift my restrictions, and whether they would be likely to do so quickly enough that I would be able to present evidence in the new case while it’s still in its evidence stage? Even though it looks like I won’t be able to get any guidance from the other arbitrators about this, I would like to at least have some from you. --Captain Occam (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Send me an e-mail on this and I'll forward it to the committee for discussion and hopefully a prompt response. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All right, thanks for the offer. I hope it isn’t a problem that my e-mail is basically just a re-statement of the issue I described in my initial post here. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Will you or the other arbitrators be getting back to me about this shortly? Risker has just posted a notice on the evidence talk page that Saturday is the deadline for submitting evidence for this case, so if ArbCom takes longer than another three days to make a decision about whether I can present evidence related to race and intelligence, it will amount to the same thing as deciding that I can’t.

I’m concerned that by following your suggestion that I request advice from ArbCom about this, I may have eliminated my opportunity to present the evidence that I’d like to. If I’d requested to have my topic ban lifted as soon as the case opened, it might have been lifted by now, but instead I’ve spent the past ten days waiting for ArbCom’s advice about submitting evidence, and now the evidence stage of the case is almost over. Can you please try to give me a clear answer about this, as quickly as possible? --Captain Occam (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Requesting your comment
(or any other Arbitrator) at User talk:NuclearWarfare. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 00:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My view is that templates of this nature serve little purpose and should be dropped either when the blocked/banned user requests it (and has stopped the behavior that has led to the block or ban), or when a reasonable time has elapsed with no further problems. However, I am not sure that my personal views on this subject have always gained consensus in discussions of these types of situations. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Masters by C. P. Snow
Hi Brad,

If you liked Poundstone's book on voting, you might enjoy the account of an election for a master of a Cambridge University college.

Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 19:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Gaming the vote
Hi. Re. arbitration pages sometimes produce instances of intriguing vote-counting paradoxes. (Recommended reading: Gaming the Vote, by William Poundstone

If it is not too much trouble, could you give a short explanation of what you mean by that - rather than my having to obtain the book.

Note, I have no interest in the specific arb case; I am interested in the voting paradox which you mentioned.

If a short explanation is not possible, please don't worry. And there is no rush. It is mere idle curiosity. Best,  Chzz  ► 15:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

--Rschen7754 20:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

RfA reform
Hi Newyorkbrad. Following Jimbo's recent comment about RfA being  broken, a task force is growing to evaluate suggestions for reform of the process. The project development is intended to be the absolute antithesis of the kind of long drawn out consensus confusion that  getting BLPPROD off the ground was. Some interesting discussions have started but the immediate effort is to get the work group together. That's the background.

Would you have time, and would you be interested in being  on  the list  of proposed task force members? The page is here. --Kudpung (talk) 05:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My general reaction to RfA reform issues has been that the community was so excessively kind to me in my own RfA that it would be unmannerly for me to gripe about the process. But that was four years ago, and I would be glad to participate in a discussion. One caveat is that my time availability varies from one week to another; and another caveat is that I currently have no new ideas of note to contribute to the discussion; if you still want me with a double-caveat, count me in. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

As it was your judgement I responded to in December
I'm notifying you of what I have said here; I hope I haven't been too ambiguous for your liking. You may also wish to note the edit + summary that followed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ncmvocalist is aware that I have objected to him referring to me as an "R&I participant" on ArbCom pages where it has no relevance. He is also aware that when he responded in a negative way to this objection (by blanking my request that he refer to me as "Mathsci"), I made an official complaint to you and ArbCom about using ArbCom pages to make smearing references to other users. The message above indicates that he has no awareness of just how rude he is being. Mathsci (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Mathsci's continued failure to see the relevance in spite of the diff I have raised above frankly says everything. If he doesn't understand the behavior which was cited in the relevant Fof, and he doesn't see the parallel with how inappropriate it is to bring a decision about a banned user (and the user's name) into a civility dispute involving separate users (WQA works by discussion, not threats of blocks or sanctions or smearing references), then I fully stand by my responses to him and how it was I conveyed them. Frankly, this is deja vu...this wouldn't even have come to this absurd point if you picked up on my concern the first time around and did something about it. The February incident would have turned out differently too (and he wouldn't be risking recidivism as he has been). Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ncmvocalist created an incident on an ArbCom page. He does not accept the possibility that he could he have been at fault. Why he thinks this proves any point he was trying to make is quite beyond me. He appears to be arguing for arguing's sake, so I will leave him to it. If he continues making remarks of this kind, however, that will become a personal attack. Mathsci (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note also this diff of Ludwigs2. The same issue has affected Ludwigs2 and comments of his related to R&I have been removed from another ArbCom case, There is still one outstanding link on the evidence page which should have been removed. Mathsci (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems clear that Ncmvocalist has made Mathsci aware of his concern, and that Mathsci is in disagreement with Ncmvocalist's position. At this point it would be best of the two of you refrained from interacting with each other, which I think should be readily achievable. Thank you both. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

WQA?
NYB, would bringing up the MZ issue at WP:WQA be inappropriate or otherwise cautioned against? I saw some others suggested it but I want to make sure it's ok before I do anything. Basket of Puppies 01:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest dropping it at this point unless there is a new problem. I think that is consistent with the bulk of the advice you have received. WQA exists to provide guidance to editors, and I think that has already been achieved through the request for arbitration, even though it will not result in a case. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Understood. I now consider the issue closed and dropped. I thank you for your response. Basket of Puppies  02:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)