User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2012/Oct

Prejudgment
In keeping with Hersfold's request, I am taking this portion of the discussion to your talk page rather than continuing it on the case page, as it deals with the abstract concept of prejudgment rather than the particular case of CartoonDiablo.

My issue here isn't one where I wish to make a comparison to courts of law; I'm well aware that judges make early comments regarding cases. If we are to use that analogy, then it would be both legal teams for defense and prosecution not having a concern that a potential juror is already convinced of the defendant's guilt before the case begins.

My concern here is one of fairness. When people arrive at arbitration, it is the last step, the last straw. Quite a few people have placed their last hopes in the hands of ArbCom. These people reasonably expect a fair approach to the case, not one with prejudgments as to the validity of their statements even before evidence has been gathered. Others are brought to arbitration and haven't even had a chance to comment yet, but ArbCom members are willing to voice negative opinions of them anyway. The EP case is an abject example. You did this yourself in that case, though you asserted you were not prejudging the case. If I put my self in EP's shoes, I can easily see how you would be tilted against him should a case open. The table was not level. He was not treated fairly, and there wasn't even an attempt at due consideration of his comments before four arbitrators voted to accept. In CD's case, I would feel that Hersfold is tilted against me even before the case began.

I'm not suggesting you post naked "accept" and "decline" votes. I am suggesting that such votes remove any determination as to the validity of the complaints against any party to the case, and keep comments focused on whether the case appears to be needed or not, whether prior steps in the DR process had been attempted, prior principles that might apply in the case should it be accepted, suggestions on how to avoid the case initiating if such suggestions had not previously been applied, etc. There's a world of good that can be done with such statements.

In the CD case, he's walking into a room for arbitration where he gets to sit in a lone chair, set apart from everyone else, and everyone else is already seated awaiting his arrival. It shouldn't be this way. He should be a welcomed participant and equal in such arbitration, to arrive at a mutually agreeable decision if possible. But here there is a presumption of guilt and a presumption that sanctions will need to be applied to settle the dispute. Arbitration shouldn't be about who gets to the case request first, who gets the word out first before the victimized person has a chance to respond. ArbCom needs to have the forthrightness to make sure that all parties come to the case table as equals, acting in a rational manner. Only if such an environment can't be created due to parties refusing to behave properly should presumptions be made.

I've observed a pattern where ArbCom identifies one of the causes of a conflagration and removes that person through sanctions. This frequently leaves the underlying problem unaddressed. Think of the fire triangle. Remove one side of it, and the fire goes out. This is what ArbCom does. But, removing one element of the triangle doesn't solve the underlying problems. If you have plenty of gas fumes lying around, and plenty of oxygen to supply a fire, and no heat source it would seem the problem is solved; no fire. The reality is it is still a highly dangerous environment, just waiting for the next spark to cause it to explode and people die.

Applying this to the CD case; a cursory examination of the dispute appears to bear out there is significant dispute over the validity of data. If we remove CD from the dispute, the problem is 'resolved'; no more dispute. But, this fails to address the failure of all participants to properly use the dispute resolution processes. ArbCom itself is contributing to this by leaning towards accepting the case without an RfC, without any attempt at mediation. The 'solution' seems easy; remove CD the problem goes away...except it doesn't. ArbCom should be equally miffed that the participants are shortcutting the DR system, and trout them for doing so. If we allow the DR process to proceed the way it is supposed to, we may be able to bring out verifiable truth to the data CD is providing. If we don't, the data we retain on the project could be wrong and nobody will contest it for fear of suffering the same fate CD is about to suffer.

ArbCom should have the talent to see through these problems far better than they do. Instead, we have an ArbCom that just plays inept firefighter, removes one side of the triangle, and think the fire is solved. If ArbCom were to not publicly prejudge a case, they help set the environment in which the problems truly get solved. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your detailed thought on the matter and expect Brad will respond with similarly detailed thoughts, but wanted to interject my own opinion. I understand your concern is fairness, but I think you're conflating the issue of fairness with impartiality. When a person brings a matter to Arbcom, the goal is to end the disruption to the project, period. If the best or only way to end it requires an editor to be treated unfairly, then so be it. A person can expect that the arbitrator will be an impartial judge who is unbiased to the particular situation, they should not expect the judge to do justice with regards to them as an individual. As I said, Arbcom's goal is to end the disruption to protect the project in the collective state, not to do justice with regard to an individual. To crib from Spock (who cribbed the idea from Bentham): "The good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one." Many times ending disruption may be possible within the context of also treating the individual fairly, but it is not a necessary component. When an arbitrator can look at a matter and instantly conclude that there exists no possible evidence that would change their mind as to the solution, it is in the project's interest that they act swiftly to end the disruption. Insisting on the mechanical completion of certain steps when the decisional authority already has concluded that no other outcome is possible is an elevation of form over substance simply for the sake of making the individual feel he was fairly treated, which is not Arbcom's primary purpose.


 * I understand your point that Arbcom could attempt to find the root cause a problem instead of simply eliminating the proximate cause of the disruption. However, many of problems Arbcom deals with have their root in real world conflicts which have proven intractable to the most brilliant negotiators. Expecting Arbcom to resolve historical ethnic disputes or matters of scientific process is simply unrealistic. Expecting Arbcom to alter the ground rules of collaborative editing to eliminate the effect of these conflicts is also unrealistic and would push them into the much derided GovCom role of policy setting. Within the confines of Wikipedia, I think the best we can hope for is that over time, Arbcom removes those individuals who cannot use the collaborative editing process and finds ways to set up per se rules (like discretionary sanctions) to encourage responsible editing. I'm reminded of this science applet. Arbcom needs to find a way to lower the edges just enough to eliminate the red hot disruptive editors, while retaining the cool collaborative editors.  MBisanz  talk 03:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "When a person brings a matter to Arbcom, the goal is to end the disruption to the project, period." This is false. If it were true, then the best possible outcome of any ArbCom case would be to permanently ban any party to the case who was seen as disruptive. It is frequently the case that removing someone from a dispute (by way of sanctions) is the easiest way to 'end' the dispute but it is not often the best, as the underlying problem remains unresolved, as I noted above. I understand that ArbCom's focus needs to be on the project rather than the individual. That is, in fact, my very point. ArbCom does a very poor job of firefighting and is leaving plenty of gas fumes and oxygen around just waiting to explode. The enormous amount of clarification requests received is proof of that. The point isn't that intractable disputes in the real world find their way here and become intractable here. The point is that the editors who get to the stage of ArbCom need to have and have every reason to expect a system that works. It doesn't, in fact rather far from it. Last year, I was named as a party to a case after the case had begun. I asked for clarification as to why I was added and it was clear that the ArbCom member had prejudged my guilt in the case. He went on to propose an FoF that I had guilt, and proposed a remedy against me. Regardless, I refused to participate because arbitration shouldn't be a drumhead trial, which is exactly what it frequently is, and this particular case was a clear demonstration of where it was going. You can't get to the root cause of a problem and properly address it and thus protect the project by throwing ban hammers around and presuming guilt before a case has even begun. This heavy handed approach is actively damaging the project. It needs to stop. With ArbCom's approach, if ten people say Jake Doe is wrong, and Jake Doe is unquestionably right and can prove it, it's Jake Doe that gets banned from the project because it's the easiest thing to do to 'solve' the dispute. It's easier to remove one person from the project than it is ten. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If Jake can't communicate how he is right in a manner that would convince six of those ten people that he is right, I would question if Jake has the ability to work in a collaborative project, regardless of his being right. In my view, the problem with Arbcom is that they are hesitant to ban every disruptive party in a case, which leads to the various requests for clarification as the remaining disruptive individuals continue their activities. Too often they take ten people, ban one, put four on probation and leave five standing. An approach that resulted in five banned and five standing would be superior.  MBisanz  talk 15:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I can cite examples where very experienced editors have defended a policy point and lost to consensus that holds against the policy being debated. It doesn't really matter if Jake is eloquent. The point is that the policy lost, and that's what ArbCom is doing to Wikipedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Noting that I've read and carefully considered the input in this thread (and the related discussion on RfAr). I don't have anything new to add right now to what I've said already on this subject, but I didn't want you to think I ignored what you wrote, either. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That is very polite! --Hammersoft (talk) 12:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Ping!
Kurtis (talk) 03:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Received and responded. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

An ArbCom question
How is the secret balloting handled? AutomaticStrikeout 20:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you mean what does the interface looks like and what instructions are the voters given, you should probably just find the voting page for last year's election. It should still be on-wiki; I don't have a link handy, but if you have any trouble let me know and I'll try to track it down for you.
 * If you mean how does it work from a technical point of view, I actually don't know much about the details. The elections are administered each year by a volunteer committee that doesn't include the arbitrators. Last year's Elections Committee consisted of Happy-melon, Skomorokh, and Tznkai. I suspect any of them can give you the information you're looking for. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Mainly, I was wondering if email was used. AutomaticStrikeout 20:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not per se, but the others can explain it better than I can. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. AutomaticStrikeout 20:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:SecurePoll, and mw:Extension:SecurePoll for (extraordinarily limited) explanation, and commons:File:SecurePoll.png for a screenshot. It's all done on-wiki thru the SecurePoll interface, no email needed.--Floquenbeam (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. AutomaticStrikeout 20:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, how would I go about creating an RfC on this? AutomaticStrikeout 20:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The usual starting point for discussion on these issues is on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. (You can probably expect the discussion to start by someone telling you about the twenty-seven times similar proposals haven't been approved....) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps so, but would it be OK to just place a link on said talk page to the discussion at the village pump? AutomaticStrikeout 20:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any objection to that. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

WM:MED
Hi. I was wondering if you'd be interested in perusing our proposed bylaws and their talk page? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I will take a look. In the meantime, in general terms, I agree with the general comments that Iridescent provided you with the other day. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

3RR ServantofAllah93
Sorry about that, in editing the output of the report tool I accidentally deleted the first revert, there really were 4! My concern is that ServantofAllah93 doesn't agree that all their edits were reverts, at least that is how I see them. Dougweller (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If he takes my advice and takes it to the talkpage, it doesn't really matter how many reverts there were before now. If he reverts again, add it to the report and someone will probably block him. It's up to him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Hopefully he won't revert and won't get blocked. He told me he's not a new editor, just lost track of his old account. Dougweller (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Brad, please take a look at my note. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm swamped today and won't have a chance to look at this carefully or follow it until tonight. You or any other administrator can act based on the most current information without feeling like you're contradicting or overruling me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I wonder
if you care to comment on WP:AN. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Since it looks quite possible this will wind up in front of ArbCom, it probably would be better for me to stay out of it for now. But thanks for the heads up. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

My view
I don't know who you are, but please consider the damage Malleus_Factourum does to new users. Or is this issue too trivial to consider? MathewTownsend (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Who I am doesn't really matter much for the moment, except that I'm one of the 15 arbitrators.
 * Avoiding incivility and personal attacks that drive away new users (or for that matter experienced users) is extremely important. However, I'm not sure that Malleus Fatuorum's comments are often directed toward new users. In this case at least they were not. That being said, I certainly agree that Malleus Faturoum should change the way he communicates with his colleagues when he is unhappy with them, and I've said so many times. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * well, he has driven me away from reviewing GAN, and he's now attacking an editor that I value for his honesty and civility. Why does this continue? I don't understand. His reason is he doen't accept apologies. Why is this editor supported by ArbCom?  MathewTownsend (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It can at times be impossible to be both honest and civil - and in some cases, honesty is the more important of the two. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you're aware of the context, it's one of the threads at WT:GAN. --Rschen7754 17:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Newyorkbrad couldn't care less about the context of MathewTownsend's remarks, as blatantly lying is not considered to be uncivil here. Malleus Fatuorum 17:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't approve of lying, but I don't know enough about what apparently happened between the two of you in the past to comment on whether anyone is lying, or whether (as is also quite possible) the two of you simply viewed a situation differently. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It was lying, as MathewTownsend admitted himself. QED. Malleus Fatuorum 19:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

But how do I handle it when it continues and I've repeatedly apologized. I just get into more trouble apologizing.

September 10
 * I rolled back Ownership of articles returning the "See also" articles I was reading. But my rollback has no place for an edit summary.
 * I immediately explained on the talk page that the rollback didn't give me a chance to leave an edit summary;explanation for revert
 * Nikkimaria questions my reverts. re
 * I clarify reasons for revert explanation for revert)
 * Someone else says Nikkimaria's edit summaries don't make sense. etc.
 * I try to explain myself and my stupid mistake in formating which Malleus Fatuorum insists I did on purpose and criticizes my contribution. Please read Wikipedia talk:Ownership of articles where this is discussed on September 10 through 12. (It's still there.)

September 29 October 1
 * After Malleus Fatuorum called me a liar for the same incident on talk GAN. So I tried to explain myself on there Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations where Malleus Fatuorum calls me a liar three time on September 29.
 * Now he is calling me one here. My explanations only make things worse. I seem to do everything wrong. What should I do? MathewTownsend (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * When you're in a hole, stop digging? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

why don't you stop following me around, Nikkimaria? You accused me of motivations I didn't have. I'm just trying to figure things out. You're not helping me. So now I can't asked advice here? Where am I allowed to without you following me and discrediting me and keeping my mistakes (made on September 12) alive. Please, I ask you to stop the grudge. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've no particular grudge against you – you can post wherever you please, but so can I. You asked for advice, I gave you some. You don't seem inclined to follow it, so if you choose to continue to discredit yourself that's your prerogative. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I asked for advice but not from you. That you follow me around repeat your advice to me over and over isn't helpful. To me, you are the problem, Nikkimaria, along with Malleus Fatuorum who has changed comments by others on my talk page. Please stop following me around and interjecting your negative comments about me everywhere I post. You don't seem to notice that you and Malleus Fatuorum are the only ones that have a problem with me. Others support me. Why do you two perpetuate your grudges? MathewTownsend (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * He didn't change the comment, he restored the comment that he replied to. See WP:REDACT. As to removal of comments, see and WP:KETTLE. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

To Newyorkbrad - I didn't lie. That is a fiction that Nikkimaria and Malleus Fatuorum are perpetuating. No one else supports their view. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I just restored my comments to you. Nikkimaria removed them immediately after my posting them. Please ask her to stop following me around. Thanks! MathewTownsend (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * . I'll repeat: I don't have a grudge, simply an aversion to misrepresentation. Look at the timeline you posted above: do you honestly believe it is an accurate portrayal of events? A perusal of the pages in question would suggest otherwise. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nikkimaria, please do not refactor others' talk page comments just because you believe that what they are saying is incorrect. MathewTownsend, perhaps you could explain more clearly what you would like Newyorkbrad to do, and why, or perhaps this thread would be best abandoned? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly. I was hoping to give Mathew a chance to avoid being accused of lying again, but as you will. I suggest, though, that you extend the same request to him. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait, you refactored his comment because he had been refactoring your comments? Exactly whose playground did I stumble into? Give it a rest, please. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, and I didn't say that. What I suggested was that you extend the same advice to MT, since he appears unwilling to accept mine. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're still being cryptic, since I can't figure out what "the same advice" refers to, if it doesn't refer to either refactoring others' comments, or leaving a pointless discussion alone. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the lack of clarity. What I meant was: no, I did not refactor his comment because he refactored mine. However, I do think you (or someone else) should advise him against refactoring comments; I would do so myself, but he has already stated he does not want to hear any advice I might offer him. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Demiurge1000 :::I wanted his advice when a new user (me) is personally attacked because of a mistake I made and apologized for. However, I've given up on that. I just want to make it clear I didn't lie. Nikkimaria and Malleus Fatuorum insist I lied. I didn't. I was confused, made an accidental mistake in formatting and apologized repeatedly. They repeatedly change my comments and those of others, but don't let me redact a mistake I made. But I give up. So never mind. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nikkimaria provides links above that personally attack me for comments that I tried to redact and apologized for. So calling my attempts to explain my view as "your passive-aggressive schtick is pretty transparent." Is that really helpful? Please see comments on this page. Did I lie? and and further comments here. Did I lie? Is being confused and scared the same as lying? I actually did believe that wikipedia was a collaborative project, but because I was mistaken in this, it doesn't mean I'm lying. From fear I withdrew from reviewing GAN because Malleus Fatuorum made it clear that he had reviewed way more than my 186 (or whatever) and so I'm scared than now he and Nikkimaria will find fault with my reviews, even though I'm considered an excellent reviewer and dog me as they have over my mistakes on the ownership page. Is this the way wikipedia is? Is my puny mistake worth all this? Malleus Fatuorum has said repeatedly that he doesn't accept apologies. So I'm forever damned for accidentally removing a link to Tickle Cock Bridge, called a Puritan, for which I apologized and fixed. Please tell me, is this the way wikipedia is? Is this worth Nikkimaria driving me away? She could have allowed me to redact (with an explanation), but instead reinstated them so others could continue to condemn me.  I urge you to read the links Nikkimaria provides above. I don't think they prove what she thinks they do.  MathewTownsend (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing as I didn't say what I think they prove, you can't really comment on whether I'm right. That aside, I'm not sure how much clearer I can be on this point: I have no grudge against you, and no desire to "drive you away". What I would like is for you to drop this whole dispute, stop bringing it up on every second page, and accept that a) others have points of view different from your own, and b) these may even be valid. You made a post that several people took offense to, and you were slapped down for it. You were slapped harder than perhaps you should have been, but your subsequent actions have served only to exacerbate the perceived attack behind your initial post. You likely didn't intend for things to go the way they did, so if you're confused and scared I'm sorry for you...but you're not innocent in all of this, I'm afraid. So whether you'd like to hear it or not, here's my advice to you: drop this whole line of commentary, because it seems likely only to upset you further. Go in peace. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * well, I did happen to notice that hardly anyone agreed with you, so why don't you drop it, Nikkimaria? MathewTownsend (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I already told you why: I dislike misrepresentation, and I'd hate for anyone to get caught up by statements like the one you just made. You? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone wisely suggested to me last weekend that I should make an attempt to avoid all unparliamentary language. I think you two should make an effort to do the same. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mark. Agree completely. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Long-term grudges
I was thinking about the toxicity of Wikipedia's editing environment, in light of some recent high-profile incidents with which you're familiar, and one thing that has always stood out to me is the seemingly limitless capacity of Wikipedians to develop, nurture, and retain grudges. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen an apparently dry-but-productive discussion derailed with an unexpectedly venomous, highly personal, often passive-aggressive interjection. The really impressive thing is that these grudges appear arcane and picayune to an outside observer, but clearly weight heavily to the point that editors seize various tangential opportunities to express them.

A couple of the most recent examples I've come across:
 * This thread starts off as a bland discussion of GA review logistics, but it takes only 4 posts for someone to derail and personalize the discussion with a passive-aggressive reference to an old grudge.
 * In this thread, a semi-retired editor (using an IP) brings up a grudge from 2008, out of nowhere. Seriously, he's been obsessing about an editing dispute for four years and waiting to unload.

It's not my intent to single out these editors, because they're only the most recent examples of this phenomenon. I don't know what you can say to the sort of person who holds a grudge over an editing dispute for four years, or who can't let a logistical discussion proceed without an aggrieved interjection. Wikipedia is, famously, not therapy, but it seems like we've attracted, selected for, and retained people with an unhealthy capacity for animus and grudge-holding. Maybe people who lack perspective are disproportionately drawn here - certainly it seems like the most vituperative disputes are over the smallest, least significant matters, like hyphenation or road names. I mean, at Talk:Paul Ryan there's a massive discussion, complete with RfC's and topic-bans, about how to handle Ryan's time from a marathon he ran more than a decade ago. This discussion completely dwarfs, in size and seriousness, any discussion about how to neutrally and competently present Ryan's voting record, legislative career, or role in the current Presidential campaign. If a future archaeologist were to use Wikipedia talkpages to get a sense of the 2012 Presidential election, they would conclude that the U.S. was a nation obsessed with the endurance-running capacities of its potential leaders to the exclusion of virtually all else. But anyhow... the main thing was that I was struck by the way so many of our interactions here are driven, and sabotaged, by old and often petty grudges. MastCell Talk 20:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that the sort of thing you describe frequently happens and that it is often damaging. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If it's any consolation, Croesus was, we're told, similarly perplexed by the vast importance attached by 6th century B.C. Athenians to feats of endurance (albeit not necessarily in their potential leaders). Perhaps we haven't moved on much from that fevered cradle of democracy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can compare the 21st-century U.S. to ancient Athens. After all, their democracy decayed into an cynical, expansionist oligarchy whose ill-conceived military adventures triggered a complete financial, moral, and political collapse. That couldn't happen here. MastCell Talk 19:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Alleged hounding/goading by Br'er Rabbit
Was reported at WP:ANI, arguably by an editor with a checkered history himself. I vaguely recall that you were the resident expert in Br'er Rabbit's prior ArbCom case(s). Tijfo098 (talk) 23:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I get this all the time, Brad ;) recall Tijfo from the motions page? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that Brad was one of the arbitrators most favorable to the lifting of all restrictions on you, (per motions 1 and 5 there), I think I'm doing you a favor by asking him to comment, instead of any of the other 9 arbs who supported motion 5. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Constitutional rights in unincorporated territories of the US
Hi Newyorkbrad,

I'm looking forward to the information you have at

WP: reference desk/Miscellaneous

Thanks, Duoduoduo (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

YGM
Hi. I sent you an email. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Received and responded. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI
I suspect you've already seen it and actually had no intention of responding (for personal reasons &mdash; I'm sorry if it comes across as rude of me to say that), but I'm posting here just in case you haven't. I thought you might be interested in reading it.

Take care. =) Kurtis (talk) 02:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for taking the time to participate in my RfA. I hope that I will be able to improve based on the feedback I received and become a better editor. AutomaticStrikeout 22:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey Brad...
You might want to double check your signature on your Recusal Vote.. <> ~ .. er I mean SirFozzie (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Looks like someone already fixed it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your advice in the email. This may interest you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

A question I have been pondering
Honestly, I do not expect you to reply. I increasingly feel few people read what I write and even fewer actually feel compelled to reply. It is as if the community has disowned me but don't have anything to work with to get rid of me.

I find it quite hurtful when I am being told to avoid matters that are most significant to me. In the matter of Davenbelle, this individual has more than bothered me for about half a decade. No one was talking about this in the AN thread which was the only reason I chose to participate after waiting for more than a day. There were even people treating him like the best thing since sliced bread. People are entitled to have any opinion, of course. But I have not observed even a small fraction of the good faith put into Davenbelle poised at me even though I have not committed the kind of disruption he has. I even find myself of being accused of stuff and no one seems to be there to listen when I try to clarify matters.

I have been pondering this question for the past three years. You probably have read the remark that was poised at me by RexxS on Bishonen's talk page. I had no prior interaction with that user that I can recall even though he had the audacity to threaten (or in his words cation) me. I find such remarks quite unfair and I do not know how to deal with them. I certainly can ignore them like I had for years but this doesn't seem to be working at all.

-- A Certain White Cat chi? 00:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The spirit in which I wrote my comments was that I assume the most important thing to you, both from the point of view of your own personal well-being and from the point of view of Wikipedia, is that Davenbelle not bother you any more.
 * At this point, Davenbelle (under whatever account name) is not just blocked under his various accounts, but is the subject of a community ban. This means that he is not allowed to edit Wikipedia in general, much less to edit Wikipedia in a way that affects you. In addition, by some of his last edits ("scuttling the fleet"), he seems to accept that he will no longer be editing.
 * I find this outcome in which a long-term editor had to be blocked again and community-banned, to be very sad. A few weeks ago, I completely lost my temper and patience with regard to this editor (I don't know whether you noticed that at the time), and I know I am not the only one, so I can't say I'm exactly shocked by this outcome. That doesn't make it less unfortunate that someone who had a lot to offer the project can no longer have the pleasure of contributing, and that the project no longer has the benefit of his contributions.
 * I have been following this saga since I started editing in 2006. I have dealt with it as an editor, as an arbitration clerk, and as an arbitrator, although I currently have recused myself from dealing with it any further because Br'er Rabbit got so deeply under my skin that I no longer trusted myself to deal with him. I know that you have suffered a lot of stress from your interactions with this editor. I can understand if you disagreed with the decision that allowed him to return, and I can understand if you are concerned that he may try to evade his current ban. If that occurs, it will have to be dealt with.
 * But it behooves you, at this stage of the situation, to avoid any conduct that could reasonably be understood, rightly or wrongly, at gloating about his departure, or choosing right now, right when he is trying to decide whether to go and find another hobby or whether he is unable to step away as he is supposed to, to say things that he will feel some need to try to respond to.
 * I cannot tell you what you should do; I can only offer advice. My advice is to ask yourself, before you post anything further about this individual, exactly what purpose you would be serving by doing that.
 * I hope this is helpful. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply.
 * I have not been following the user's conduct since I believe 2008. The time he was unblocked by ArbCom. The feeling I had at the time was betrayal but as time passed on I felt indifferent of weather or not he is banned, unbanned, demoted or promoted. After all, the user has kept his promise to leave me alone, I have done the same even though I had the opportunity to "retaliate" but that wouldn't benefit the site or anyone for that matter. The time I was aware of his conduct since his unblock was during the incident where his passwords were compromised only because issue was brought up on the stewards IRC channel. The only other time was the recent community ban discussion at which the only reason I was compelled to participate was the lack of historic context that was seemingly forgotten. Based on how the votes looked, he would have been community banned with or without my input. Despite all that has transpired, I am indifferent at his community ban. I am not dancing in joy as some people may think. I would not have felt a need to participate at the discussion at all had I feel a fraction of the good faith Davenbelle was treated with despite his past.
 * My concern is less about Davenbelle returning and harassing me, I have grown to trust him that he will still keep his promise. If he doesn't, that can be dealt with like you mentioned. My concern is more personal in nature. Looking back I do feel that it was a mistake for me to file the ArbCom cases I filed over the relentless stalking I was forced to endure. They have only served to harm me in the end. Certainly they might have helped to end the stalking (or Davenbelle got bored of getting caught) but community only remembers me as "that person whom was always in conflict with people". For instance, I doubt I can ever pass an RfA or even gather 10 positive votes as people would probably quote the ArbCom rulings. I guess what I am trying to say is, I cannot understand the rationale behind such mistrust. Everything I did has failed in that regard.
 * -- A Certain White Cat chi? 15:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I well remember dealing with his sock Moby Dick, so you'll find me always there to defend you should he return to socking and harassment.MONGO 17:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Misclick of my mouse and accidental revert on this page
Hi,

I accidentally reverted your page. My hand jerked and my mouse, which has acquired new powers lately, apparently reverted your page. I'm sorry. I see that my mistake has been fixed. Thanks for not thinking the very worst of me.

Best wishes,

MathewTownsend (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Responded on your talk. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Nice touch
I see once again that you have exhibited intelligence and insight in your understanding of the situation. I grieve somewhat that you appear to be in a minority in your current cadre on ArbCom. Thank you as usual for being wise and thoughtful. Would that it were more common. --John (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That was an amazingly excellent post. very nicely done. - jc37 23:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You know Brad, I think your post on Malleus's talk page might very well earn you a Pulitzer Prize nomination. Best reading material I've encountered in a long while, and I say this as an avid reader myself. Kurtis (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It begins to bring back my faith in Wikipedia. I can't express my admiration enough.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 23:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all very much for the kind words. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Go  Phightins  !  03:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Is Are there precedents?
I'm stunned at the turn of events in Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment. I haven't followed the history of ArbCom as close as some, so pardon my ignorance, but has there ever been a proposal for a six month ban as part of a Clarification? I looked at Arbitration/Active sanctions, hoping to get some insight, but it appears that sanctions are listed alongside the case, without a clear separation between sanctions arising from the original case and sanctions arising from a clarification.

Do you know of any precedent, or any way to research the question?-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  15:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It occurs more often in the context of an amendment or as a consequence of a clarification that arise from an AE referal, but a motion as a response to what started as a clarification request is not unusual, if not frequent. Most instances I can remember are related to the gray edges around a topic ban, in fact, which is related to what has occurred here.
 * Researching past occurrences is bound to be a bit complicated since motions relating to a sanction tend to be archived along with the original cases (which makes sense when you want to know the status of a sanction) and not by how it came about. There isn't really extensive cross-referencing of ArbCom activity – it would occasionally be useful, but it implies so much work nobody really stepped up to take it upon themselves to do it.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate the challenge of keeping track of such things, and recognize it would be a lot of work, and rarely worth it. However, I occasionally stumble across analyses that are a lot of work, and someone has completed, so I vaguely wondered if that had occurred.
 * I am not troubled by the existence of a motion, but the severity startles me. At the risk of torturing an analogy, it is as if someone asks for clarification of a ten hour community service penalty imposed because of multiple parking tickets, in view of the observation that the community service was creating some unintended consequences and the judge decided, not to make it 20 hours, but six months in solitary. (I wrote more, but the additional words are more appropriate for the clarification page, my main goal here was to get a sense of precedents.)-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  18:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sentence enhancement in criminal proceedings "due to lack of remorse" are known to exist. Trial judges have silently (and sometimes overtly) punished criminal defendants for exercising their constitutional rights (this is sometimes under the guise of taking into account the record as it developed at trial, and indignation at the temerity of the defendant's perjured testimony. That may not be a comforting metaphor. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 18:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

There are a few cases in which sanctions have been increased as the result of events that occurred after the case was closed, although I don't recall whether they arose through formal on-wiki amendment or clarification requests, or as a result of off-wiki matters. It is fair to say that this happens rarely, however. Coren is correct that this typically occurs more often through arbitration enforcement (which is handled by other administrators) rather than through amendments and clarifications (which are handled by the Committee).

(Pardon me for lapsing into nerd mode, but I think you mean "predecents" here rather than "precedence." Malleus among others would never forgive me if I didn't point this out.)

Although the Wikipedia arbitration process sometimes utilizes a smattering of legal language and even some legalistic concepts, I would definitely prefer to avoid analogies to criminal proceedings. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Color me embarrassed on the spelling - I had a nagging feeling something was wrong, but I missed it. (now corrected)-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  20:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You might want to check just once more. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In WP:ARBSL a broader topic ban was passed by motion when the editor involved filed an amendment request asking that a narrower AE topic ban be lifted. I don't recall any other similar case from recent memory. T. Canens (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "ARBSL"? There must be something wrong if even I can't remember all the abbreviations any more. But thanks for the reference. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was just about to add that a later clarification request in that case led to another topic ban by motion :D It's not one of the more...frequently referenced cases. T. Canens (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

YGM (again)
Kurtis (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Brad, did you receive my message? Kurtis (talk) 00:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Pssst...
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FClarification_and_Amendment&diff=519072262&oldid=519070585 It's Hawkeye7, not JHunterJ. Different case :)] Black Kite (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh my gosh. That's what happens when I sneak in editing time when I'm supposed to be doing something else. I'll fix that immediately. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Recuse
Brad, unusual times call for unusual steps. Won't you consider the possibility of un-recusing yourself? This isn't about the original case anymore anyway. --regentspark (comment) 13:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I was actually thinking about this myself when the original motion 1 was passing.
 * Note that I wasn't recused in the original case. If we had a new case whose gist was strictly "is Malleus too uncivil?" or "was Malleus properly blocked on X date for being too uncivil," I probably wouldn't recuse in such a case (although I hope to heck there isn't another such case).
 * The specific issue that led me to recuse was the focus of the original request on Malleus's participation in RfA. As I said in explaning my recusal on RfAr, for the past several months, Malleus has used me as the standard example (I had typed "poster child" but I don't know if that idiom travels) of someone whose RfA standards are too low. He doesn't just respond when I post a support on a given RfA, but in a generic conversation that I've had nothing to do with, he'll throw in my name. He particularly disagrees with my view that some of our younger editors are qualified for adminship, and tends to bring that up whenever I cast a support for anyone under about 30 years old. He has also accused me of "bullying" an editor for politely asking him to remove/strike through an obvious joke "oppose" that was the only oppose in an otherwise unanimous RfA, and has accused me of misconduct for deleting an obvious troll vote by an account that (I may not have the details exact here) posted a blatantly spurious oppose rationale as its first-ever effort, and in due course was blocked for socking.
 * I had actually gotten pretty tired of Malleus making these accusations and comments about me. I wouldn't suggest they rise to the level of a block or a ban, but in fairness, I have to acknowledge that I wouldn't have minded seeing fewer of them.
 * It's in that context that we had the clarification request asking whether Malleus's limited topic-ban on WT:RFA should be construed broadly or narrowly. One of my tests for recusal (one of the few instances in which I overtly borrow a concept from real-world law and apply it to arbitration) is whether my impartiality in addressing a given issue could reasonably be questioned. If I had voted to narrow Malleus's right to participate in RfA, someone could think that I did so because I was personally rankled by his comments. That actually wouldn't have affected me one way or the other, or at least I don't think it would, but one of the reasons we have 15 arbitrators is so that one or two can err on the side of sitting out a case when there's reason to, while still leaving plenty of people to decide it.
 * I was starting to reconsider whether recusal on this request was an overreaction, when motion 1 was proposed and passing. There was of course an irony to my being recused if I might have been the deciding vote on that motion. I would have opposed it, so of course it would have been odd that I recused because I might be seen as annoyed with an editor, and my recusal wound up hurting him. The lesson, I suppose, is that if you're an editors who expects to wind up on the arbitration pages someday, you probably shouldn't get in the face of the notoriously most lenient arbitrator so that I wind up being unable to vote against banning you.
 * Instead of reconsidering my recusal, I posted my personal plea to Malleus on his talkpage Friday night. Perhaps it played a role in helping the situation; I guess we'll know the answer to that eventually.
 * But now motion 1 isn't passing, and what's pending before the Committee is tweaking and finalizing the wording of motion 2, which is about clarifying the limits of Malleus's particpation in RfA.
 * This is where I came in.......... Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. I'm not sanguine about it but hopefully this will keep Malleus away from arbcom for long enough. A psychologically interesting phenomenon that we're observing with the concurrent Malleus, India/Pakistan, and R&I cases, is that the existence of an arb ruling encourages editors to come back to arbcom creating more drama in the process. Something worth thinking about when arbs design a sanction (or choose to make a sanction). --regentspark (comment) 14:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of speech = New WikiProject
I've recently gone ahead and created WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do: Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech
 * 1) List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech.
 * 2) Add userbox User Freedom of speech to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
 * 3) Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using WikiProject Freedom of speech.
 * 4) Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
 * 5) Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Wording
How about "disclosing the identity of anonymous contributors" or "disclosing the identity of anonymous Wikipedians"? Shorter, anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever you call it, letting people decide his fate based on the claim, without being able to see what really happened, doesn't seem fair. Nor is 3RR on your own talk page.  I have no idea if he should be banned or not, and not arguing one way or the other on that point.  My concern is only that he gets the same treatment we would give you or I.  A full case isn't needed, but Arb should look at the evidence (or a panel of oversighters) in a calm and deliberate manner, and be able to make a determination in a few days.  If nothing else, it is important that the process looks and is fair, regardless of what your final decision is.  Fair is always better than fast.  I mean, he IS blocked, so he isn't going anywhere...  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 01:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of My Name Is Not Merv Griffin for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article My Name Is Not Merv Griffin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/My Name Is Not Merv Griffin until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 03:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)