User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2012/Jul

Thanks!
Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagal e jo^^^ 06:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Sarsaparilla
Dear sir, I am User:Sarsaparilla. You told me a few years ago that while I was making useful contributions to some of the parliamentary procedure articles, I needed to address some of my other behavior in order to continue editing. I didn't listen then, and ended up getting banned. But I have been gone for 21 months and would like to return and show that I can be a productive editor who can coexist peacefully with the rest of the community and not harm the project. Please help me accomplish this. I am interested in candidly discussing any concerns you and the rest of the ArbCom and the community may have, despite the possibly sensitive nature of some of those concerns. I realize I have had many chances, but I believe that it will not harm the project too much to provide another one, given the lengthy passage of time. If we assume, for mathematical convenience, that I have 420 months left in my life, then one chance every 21 months only amounts to 20 chances total, which is not too much of a burden for the community to handle, in my opinion, when weighed against the potential for me to make some good contributions. But it is my hope and intention that this will be the last chance needed. I am restricting my editing to pages pertaining to my ban and to my mentorship by User:BDD until a final decision is made. Thank you. Leucosticte (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

GLAM Night Out at Wikimania
On the night of Thursday 12 July in DC at the Newseum near the Wikimania conference, Consumer Reports and the GLAM-Wiki US Consortium are hosting a social event and a panel on health information and Wikipedia. I would like to invite you to attend. Please RSVP here if you want to attend either or both the social event or the panel. It was nice meeting you at the Wikimedia NYC election and thanks for the nice chat about arbitration. I am interested in history and precedent and it occurred to me that arbitrators must be keepers of these kinds of stories.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   18:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I won't be able to attend that event, as I won't be arriving in Washington until Friday morning. Thanks for the invite, though, as well as the kind words. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't, not really
"It is well-known that Malleus Fatuorum has low regard for me, so he may not take my thoughts seriously, but that is neither here nor there." I can understand how you might have got that impression, but I really don't have a low regard for you. Sure, we have a few chasms over issues like kiddie admins and "civility", but by a long stretch I think that Wikipedia and ArbCom would be a far worse place without your measured input. We're just different people, neither of us bad people, just different. Malleus Fatuorum 23:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for this note. I've added another sentence or two on the arbitration page. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Opinion?
I'd like to hear your opinion on this if you have one. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My view of the situation largely corresponds with yours. (Although please note that I haven't reviewed the conduct of any specific administrator.) I'll chime in on the discussion if I can think of anything to add beyond what's pertty much already been said. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom case
Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Proposed_decision – I've replied to your comment. I don't believe that it'll convince you, but the reply expresses what I sincerely know, believe, and feel. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've seen it and am thinking about what you have written. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Your attention, please.
Let the committee know. This has Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey and Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair written all over it. Uncle G (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 110
 * I'll mention this to the Committee although I'm not sure what action (if any) we can take or you are recommending at the moment. It might be helful if you sent us an e-mail with whatever background you have. Thanks for the heads up. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I couldn't think of what you could do, either, without a case actually in front of you. I was originally going to take this to your talk page rather than to Jimbo's.  I didn't want to go to Jimbo's, given the obvious side-effects.  But it's at Jimbo's, with a courtesy notification here, because (amongst a few other reasons) it seemed after some thought that a community site ban or some Founder/Office action were the courses available, and I wanted to give Jimbo the opportunity to step in before I requested the former.  Moreover, I've tried to stop an arbitration case from happening.  This situation is bad enough as it is.  I'll let you know if I think of something.  Uncle G (talk) 10:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Brad, I have some awareness of this matter; ping me if you think I can help– I've already offered to bring Geoff up to speed (and yes, this is one of those cases I think requires his attention). &mdash; Coren (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Question
Hi Newyorkbrad, I'm not sure about the propriety of contacting arbitrators during voting for ARBFLG2, and that's something I'd like to inquire about. Thank you for reading the talk page on the Proposed Decision. It's not clear to me what evidence is being seen by whom. As you noted with respect to the proposed finding on my purported point of view editing, the wording as initially proposed was not supported by any evidence (and was simply inaccurate), yet it gained several votes in the affirmative regardless. That's a little worrying to me. I think the wording as proposed is still without evidence (that is, there is no evidence that my edits failed NPOV or any other content policies, whereas there is evidence of this—on the corresponding talk pages—for edits by the other parties). Similarly, I'm not sure that the evidence of edit warring has been examined very closely, or even what the specific evidence is (clear evidence of edit warring was presented for the other party,  much less clear evidence for me. I wrote a note on this on the talk page as well). There have been some instances where I've felt it would be useful to point particular arbitrators to certain evidence or points of clarification, but I don't know if doing so if frowned upon. Is it alright for me to talk to you in this forum? Any guidance you can offer would be helpful. Thanks. Homunculus (duihua) 12:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no prohibition against contacting individual arbitrators, but it's not necessarily the most effective way to do things, as the other arbitrators might not see what you wrote. Hence, the talkpage of the proposed decision is probably the best place. You could then point me to the relevant thread on that talkpage, although hopefully I will have seen it before I finish voting. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. Honestly, it's a rather confusing process, so it's helpful to be able to ask questions of the arbitrators (and I don't want to burden Hersfold unduly).
 * I am not sure what the arbitrators are looking at, but at the same time, I don't really want to rehash the workshop phase by vying for people to consider some aspect of the case or another. With that said,  I wonder if it would be helpful in some cases if I pointed out my take on some of the context surrounding the proposed decision items (as I did here concerning edit warring).  For example, a couple folks raised some comments / questions on one of the proposed findings of fact regarding bad faith accusations. I thought about offering my perspective on the context, the veracity, and the representativeness of those diffs and the broader conduct issues in response to the comments by arbitrators.  But I'm not sure if doing so would be helpful, necessary, or if it would only inflame the dispute further...?  Regards, Homunculus (duihua) 03:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A brief, factual response to the assertions and comments on the proposed decision would certainly be in order on the proposed decision talkpage. You can link there if you wish to where you've addressed issues on the workshop. I would certainly consider your input (and anyone else's) there before voting. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Good to know. I offered some thoughts here.  Apologies that it's not terribly brief. Homunculus (duihua) 05:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And some more, as I noticed some of the other arbitrators raised questions on this material (and you have not yet voted on it). Thanks. Homunculus (duihua) 21:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sigh
While you wait for others to cast votes or reconsider theirs, perhaps you might also reconsider your vote on the relevant remedy and Fof concerning JHunterJ? In response to more recent concerns regarding his approach, JHunterJ has continued to suggest that users who come to a different view than him on RMs disagree with the guidelines (when that is often not the case - and has been noted in the feedback he was given during the move review). He also suggested that he is accused of 'supervoting' because he analyses discussions instead of counting votes (when the actual concern is that his close appears as a supervote and that he should be taking greater care at the time of closing). I could go further obviously, what with his unjustified reference to me when I was not participating in that discussion, but you should be able to see how that is problematic in any event. The evidence to suggest he has benefited from talk page discussion does not really appear to outweigh the benefit of ArbCom advising him. If we want to stay fixed on the 'hopefully it will be OK' outlook, it would be my hope that the unanimous support with abstentions would have enough of an effect (as there might be more chance of him adjusting his approach in responding to feedback so as to avoid the need for further DR down the track). Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I still disagree with the specific wording of the proposed remedy. I also frankly don't think that JHunterJ is likely to react differently depending on whether a vote is 9-0 or 8-1. The broader issues concerning how requested moves are dealt with&mdash;including the disputes in which JHunterJ is involved on the talkpage&mdash;are, for better or worse, not addressed by this proposed decision. As one of the other arbitrators noted somewhere, not a lot of evidence was presented in the case on these issues. I think it may be time for a community reevaluation of how the whole requested moves process works, which would pick up some of the issues involved in this dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you proposed an alternate wording though, did you? Still, I did note that the recent concerns I linked to were raised by his peer - and that peer also addressed why he did not present evidence on the issues you are referring to at the relevant time. From what I could see, there isn't much evidence of other administrators being subject to similar concerns regarding closure of RM discussions in the same way this administrator has been; where that has happened, it seems other administrators respond in an appropriate manner to concerns raised (even on occasions where disagreement continues to exist by the end of the discussion). To me, that is an indication about the individual needing to evaluate their approach rather than an indication that a review of the process (or new process) is necessary or beneficial. Of course, you might base your well-intentioned review proposal on something else, but even so, I disagree that this is in any way the right time for it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As you will have seen, there was a point in the development of the proposed decision when three desysoppings that I thought excessive were passing. I prioritized my efforts in commenting on the decision on that aspect, for reasons I trust you can understand. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed (my last response to you on the PD talk page covered some part of that). Still, I did not hesitate in asking given that the advisement proposal in question was raised during the workshop phase - before the previously passing proposals were raised on-wiki in the PD phase. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You have mail
NewtonGeek (talk) 01:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

--JimWae (talk) 07:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Cyprus
Hi. Thanks for giving some thought to the Cyprus edit-warring problem I brought up at WP:RFAR. My impression is that there just isn't any consensus in ArbCom right now for getting involved in this issue without an actual case; am I reading things correctly?

Although there seems to be a potential for edit-warring to flare up again at any time (see the recent histories at Nicosia and Turkish invasion of Cyprus), things seem relatively calm for the moment. hasn't reappeared as far as I can tell; not sure if this is because he's finally given up, found more constructive uses for his time, or if the IP range block imposed on his last sock has turned out to be the trick.

If, by chance, you have any parting suggestions on this topic, I'd welcome the input. On another front, I've observed flareups from time to time involving Georgia (country), the 2008 South Ossetia war, and related topics; I seem to recall at least one prior AE action in this area per WP:ARBEE, which arguably makes sense since Georgia was part of the USSR and much of its recent territorial angst can be traced back to Soviet-era events. — Rich wales 03:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't have any brilliant ideas regarding Cyprus, nor have I followed the wiki articles on Georgia. We probably need a more global perspective on discretionary sanctions for all national/ethnic disputes, since probably a majority of our cases that have resulted in discretionary sanctions remedies arise from such disputes. But I'm not sure how (or whether) we should get there from here. I know there was a working group a couple of years ago on how best to address this type of disputes; I don't have a handy link to its report, but you might want to take a look at that as well. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record...
Not having jumped in on Noetica's desysopping straw poll one way or the other doesn't necessarily mean the "community" agrees with him.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I realized that, and I didn't consider the straw poll listing per se to be the most useful part of the input we received on that page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The committee
Maybe there's something in the coffee your colleagues are drinking.

More seriously, the isolation takes its toll insofar as working as an arb over time causes people to lose touch with what does and does not matter to the broader community. In this case, also, I think most of the committee is out of touch with what it is like to work as an admin in highly contentious subject areas. And finally, it appears to me that the committee has lost sight of the importance of utilizing intermediate sanctions in those situations, involving admins, that merit more than an admonishment.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I assume you are referring here to the Perth case. If so, I'd welcome your sharing your views with my colleagues, especially given that you were hardly known as a soft-liner during your tenure as an arbitrator. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Typo alert
I believe you meant "deferring" rather than "deterring" here, in case it matters to you. Best wishes, alanyst 03:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks - fixed. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion on something rather arbitrary
I'm not sure if this is really that big of an issue, but I thought I'd ask your opinion on something I just did.

On the former administrators page, I noticed that a number of people who were listed had returned under another name and it was mentioned there. I recently made a couple edits verifying the new identities of other former sysops, as shown here. I'm worried that some of the additions I've made (specifically in the case of H) may have been done against the wishes of the people listed. I was just wondering if perhaps it's best to undo those edits entirely. Regards,  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 23:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I know that some of these connections were asked not to be made at the time, but I don't know whether any of them would still bother the editors in question today. If you want further details, please send me an e-mail. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * None of them have kept it a complete secret, but if they feel uncomfortable with my identifying their new accounts, then they can go ahead and remove their listing there. I'm just aware of their editing histories because at one point I was heavily interested in the politics of Wikipedia (ie. RfAs, ArbCom, AN/I, etc). It's fine, I'm not particularly curious about the subject. But thanks for the offer, and for your helpful response. =)  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 23:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Per your request
What do you think of User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris/A pocket guide to Arbitration? Nobody Ent 01:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the essay is an interesting point of view on the arbitration process from an experienced editor, and that I'm surprised I didn't come across it a couple of years ago. I think it contains a number of accurate and well-written observations, although some parts of it are a bit exaggerated, and some are more cynical than I would choose to be, and some parts of it are a bit out of date (understandable as it's more than two years old now).


 * I think it urges parties to cases to be overly defensive-minded, rather than to clearly and cogently explain why they have acted as they did in the dispute before the Committee. However, I think its emphasis on the importance of good behavior while the case is pending is generally correct.


 * An important observation in the essay that I agree with is that most of the time, the Committee focuses on the big picture underlying a case, and that many of the subtle nuances that editors bicker about on the workshop or strive to carefully document on the evidence page ultimately turn out to be tangential and don't get picked up in the final decision. (This has exact parallels in my real-world job.) Unfortunately, one can't always tell in advance which nuances will wind up mattering and which won't.


 * Among specific points of the essay with which I disagree is the assertion that "[r]eading between the lines one gathers that there is a good deal of horse trading and arm twisting behind the scenes as cases approach closure." By "horse trading," I assume SBHB means a scenario along the lines of "I'll vote to ban User:A if you'll vote to ban User:B" or some rough equivalent. I've been an arbitrator since January 2008 and that sort of trading off of votes on one issue within a case for another has never happened in any case I can recall.


 * I think the last line of the essay&mdash;"You're completely on your own in interpreting any nuances or inconsistencies in the announced decision. While it is possible to file a request for clarification my experience is that the Arbitrators would rather gnaw their own limbs off than provide meaningful guidance to the implications of their decisions."&mdash;was at best an exaggeration when it was written, but it certainly is not true today, now that we have created a dedicated "requests for clarifications and amendments section" right on the main requests for arbitration page.


 * I may have more thoughts about this later, and I'd be interested in what others have to say about it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Seriously
Hey, Brad. Can you please have a look into this... particularly the *hilarious* bit where an admin blocked the account for block evasion *before* blocking the IP address *at the same time as* removing my defence and very reasonable requests from the area where I'm meant to defend myself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Halfnakedlabrador Also, I request the contact details of the checkuser ombudsman committee. Ta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheap54678 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It would seem that your accounts have been involved with a serious sockpuppeting/harassment situation, and as such, were blocked appropriately. If the administrators/checkusers who handled the matter have erred, you can try e-mailing the Arbitration Committee, but please don't waste our time by telling us obvious lies. Or for that matter non-obvious lies, or anything other than the truth of what you have been doing and why. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have time to take a look...
Malleus and I have quite a nice article on an English judge we are trying to work up. I wonder if you have time to look it over for completeness, neutrality etc? I don't have much experience of legal biographies and I thought your input might be interesting. If you have time, it is at Melford Stevenson. Thanks, --John (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll be glad to take a look at it, but may not be able to until after the weekend. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I don't think there is any great hurry. --John (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a well-written article and well on its way. I expect that some would say that the overall tone is too critical of Stevenson. I expect that the response is that the commentary of the time, as preserved in the reliable sources, was itself critical, and hence that the article is a faithful reflection of what people thought of Stevenson as a judge.
 * The article could benefit from more use of legal sources, including reports of judicial decisions by Stevenson (if he wrote any published opinions, which I don't know whether he did or not), reports of appellate courts' reviews of his decisions, and law-review articles or the equivalents. My familiarity with British criminal law of the mid twentieth century is derived largely from detective stories, and hence I am afraid I don't have specific sources to cite; and my access to databases of published legal decisions is confined primarily to American cases. You might want to consult with an editor who is a British barrister, solicitor, or law student. Perhaps one of my talkpage watchers falls into one of these categories, or perhaps you might leave a note on the Wikiproject:Law talkpage or some other sensible place.
 * Good luck with this article, and if I think of any additional resources to recommend, I'll let you know. Best regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking a look and for your suggestions. I already asked Ironholds, who I know has done a lot of work on English legal topics, to have a look through, and Carcharoth as well. Malleus Fatuorum 17:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks from me too. --John (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

ur the best

 * hic* Egg   Centri  c  02:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

"prohibited"
I've responded on the Fae proposed decision talkpage to the concern you raised there. I mention it here only because you might not be following that page now that the decision has closed. Your input on this wording will be appreciated the next time there is a case that uses it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've responded there.


 * As it's closed, there's no need to respond at this point.


 * Am I disappointed in the arbs? In some ways yes, and in some no.


 * I suppose I must just have an unrealistically high expectation towards our arbitrators. C'est la vie.


 * Thanks for commenting at least. - jc37 19:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you may be under the misimpression that the principles (as opposed to remedies) we articulate in arbitration decisions have sweeping effects across the wiki. Frankly, I sometimes wonder whether anyone (other than the parties to the cases and a few aficionadoes of the arbitration cases) study the principles at all; I think that often they deserve more attention than they get. It certainly is not the case that editors rush to enshrine our observations in the principles sections of our decisions into the policy and guidelines pages that people do consult. The bottom line is that I don't think anything concrete will be negatively affected by the fact that we didn't change this wording this time around, but I'll make sure we discuss the point the next time the issue comes up in a case. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I may be. But it's been my experience that principles get quoted at AN/I and elsewhere (as rationales for this or that), and not uncommonly added to policy. (I seem to recall adding some to WP:ADMIN myself in the past.)
 * Anyway, thanks for your consideration. - jc37 00:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Request of comment regarding Chilean regions
You are invited to continue the discussion on the names of Chilean regions at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names). Chiton (talk) 04:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer&mdash;I'll take a look, though I don't know how much I'll have to add. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Your statement
here Will you please propose the same for the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan as the same happens there regularly. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd need a little more background on the problem, perhaps with some sort of example. If I see this sort of thing happening widely, maybe I should suggest an amendment to the policy page, as opposed to trying to deal with the issue in the arbitration context. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The perfect example is this article Rape in Jammu and Kashmir created by User:NerosRevenge a sock of User:Nangparbat It was deleted and as the topic was notable I recreated it. Topgun had the sock version restored to userspace and then stuck in straight into the article I had created. Given Nangparbat is renowned for copyright violations I found that the majority of this content was a copyvio. TG is also in email contact with Nangparbat, and Nangparbat socks continually post to the talk pages of TG and Mar4d. Nangparbat takes part in edit wars to restore or remove edits TG & Mar4d are involved in, as does Highstakes00, however the master of this particular sock has yet to be found. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

More on Cyprus
Hi. I'm extremely discouraged right now. I thought I had finally managed to get people to agree on a one-line infobox description for the current status of Nicosia, but I turned out to be quite mistaken (see the recent activity at Talk:Nicosia). I'm basically ready to give up trying to guide people toward a balanced, neutral discussion on the Cyprus conflict, because it's pretty clear that this is being made impossible by editors on both sides who think "compromise" is a four-letter word and that anyone who doesn't agree with them 100% is advocating for their opponents. At least I've still got plenty of other, less controversial and/or more clear-cut, areas in which I can work constructively. — Rich wales 18:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * With my apologies to NYB for the intrusion, Rich, I don't think any of your assertions are valid. First I think it is unfair to imply that I think, as one of the editors involved, that "compromise" is a four-letter word, so please do not indicate that I espouse something patently false and completely unacceptable to me. Similarly, it is very unfair to assert that in any way, shape or form, I believe that you have to agree with me 100% otherwise you are advocating for my opponents. It is precisely this type of oversimplifying remarks that have shaken my confidence in your attempts at brokering a compromise in such a nuanced topic, although in the past I had great confidence in you and had told you so. I just gave you my reasons at talk:Nicosia as to why you should not describe my views along ethnic lines, yet you are still doing it and not at all accurately at that. I had resigned myself to at least not contest your compromise edit until you went to the talkpage and described my views as openly pro-Greek. That necessitated my return to the talkpage to respond to you and analyse your comments about consensus. I think that not enough time was allotted for a more thorough discussion. I am still willing to provide my input in any good-faith attempt to resolve this issue but your proposed edit was not discussed in detail and your descriptions of the views of other editors fell widely off the mark. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  21:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but at this point I think the best thing for me to do is simply to withdraw entirely from articles dealing with the Cyprus dispute. I wish you and everyone else well.  —  Rich wales 21:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind wishes Rich and I reciprocate by wishing you the best. But one of my reasons for replying to you on NYB's talkpage was to quietly indicate to you that apart from our disagreements and possible mistakes on both sides that I still value your ideas and many of the points you are making regarding the dispute. I understand your discouragement due to the adversity of the situation, which has also impacted me in a similar manner, but I don't want you to think that I don't value or appreciate your efforts and your presence at these talkpages. Please return when you feel ready and let's work together. I prefer to reach a deal with you, after some reasoned discussion, than leave even the status quo on that subject. In fact I would have preferred if recent events unfolded differently and your edit were left standing because that would have saved me a lot of discussion, time and acrimony. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
I am Zsf... and i LIKE YOUR OINIONS OF ARBCOM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.204.249 (talk) 00:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to work out what the Onions of ArbCom are. There's a page in that, I'm sure.  Uncle G (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should speak with this administrator regarding your concerns. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking they may be related to the Arbitrary Committee instead. I never figured out what they were supposed to be doing, but onions certainly are arbitrary enough.  :-)  &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Onions have have a powerful irritant effect and are often characterized by a yellow streak. – iridescent  19:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You should see the French idioms that I turned up at Wiktionary from this. Uncle G (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I automatically watchlist pages that I edit and have already seen the comments on your page. I'll respond in due course if I decide I want to respond, and what I want to say. Talkpage notifications to me are not necessary. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)