User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2013/Dec

Rupert Sheldrake
While I understand ARBCOM's decision, it was a mistake to say that this dispute needs more time. It is a situation, very similar to that of Austrian economics, that began in the summer and has continued on to December. Editors are not going to suddenly become more conciliatory all of a sudden. Over the past four months, what has happened is that neutral (and a few non-neutral) editors have left the discussion because participating in a discussion on the talk page is like entering a war and having to declare which side one is on. And the people who have stayed, have become more entrenched in their POV because they think if they stick with this battle longer than the other side, "they win".

So, at best, this situation will be resolved by editors giving up attempts to edit this article (and similar ones). At worst, people will act out even more and there will be some blocks coming.

I'd like to think that ARBCOM didn't take this on because of the timing, it just didn't seem urgent enough to take on at the end of half of AC members' terms. That's a reason I can understand. Liz Read! Talk! 02:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for any other arbitrators, but I voted to decline the case this week because it was the subject of both an ongoing thread on ANI as well as the possibility of requests at Arbitration Enforcement (AE). While ANI is typically deprecated as "the drama board," sometimes discussions there do lead to resolution of an issue or at least to progress in dealing with it. While there's no guarantee of a good outcome to the community discussion on ANI, I thought it was at least worth a try. Similarly, it's possible that well-crafted requests at AE for enforcement of our previous, related decisions could assist in managing the situation.
 * Either these steps will help, or they won't. I hope they will, but if they don't help after a reasonable time, anyone would have the option of filing a new request for arbitration explaining that these other dispute-resolution mechanisms have failed and why. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocked IPs

 * Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

There is a serious backlog of about 20K individual IPs that are blocked without expiration. I have broken the IPs into groups of 5000: m:User:とある白い猫/English Wikipedia open proxy candidates. So they are effectively blocked until time ends. This creates considerable potential collateral damage as the owners of IPs tend to be not very consistent. Some of these IPs are on dynamic ranges which results in arbitrary blocks of good users. Vast majority of the blocks go back years all the way to 2004 - some were preemptively blocked. Nowadays even open proxies normally do not get indefinite blocks.

The problem is that no single admin wants to review this many IPs and very few have the technical capability to review. Such a technical review would be non-trivial for individual IPs which in my humble opinion would be a complete waste of time. I feel ArbCom could step in and provide criteria for bulk action. A bulk unblock of all indefinite blocks (with exceptions if the specific single IP unblocks are contested) before - say - 2010 would be a good start.

Open proxies tend to be better handled at meta as open proxies are a global problem for all wikis.

-- A Certain White Cat chi? 11:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not really one of my areas of expertise. I see that on her talkpage, Risker has indicated that she plans to look into this situation. I will defer to her or anyone else more suited to review this than I am. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Practical question
Do you think it's appropriate to add this bit of info from that law firm (Newman Ferrara) blog? As far as I can tell it hasn't been reported by the more generalist press. I'm not sure they might some kind of conflict of interest (rivalry or friendship) with the (arguably more famous) lawyers they are writing about there... Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your inquiry, but since I work at a New York law firm myself, I think I'd rather leave that one for someone else to opine on. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Dismas |(talk) 20:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions RFAR
I appreciate your vote, neutrally worded in a way that explores issues and keeps communications open. As you perceived, the request could be used, not only to adjust past actions that the passage of time has shown to be regrettable, but to examine discretionary sanctions in the light of how they work in real situations, with real editors. And since I did not name anyone in the request besides myself, it could be done in a dignified manner, without blaming individuals.

I note that four arbs have now voted, in spite of my request to hold off until I could respond to some of the issues. I thought it a reasonable request.

I have intentionally held off my comments until after the election has officially closed, since the two arbs running for re-election are closely involved in the current DS review. So, two specific procedural questions: 1) Will the case be archived without my having a chance to respond, or can I ask the arbs to consider a further statement that addresses the issues they have raised? I had planned to make a comment within 24 hours. 2) What would be the procedure for me to follow if someone voted who I thought should have recused?

Best regards, —Neotarf (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Procedure for clarification and amendment requests, in terms of how long requests are kept open and the like, are not as well-defined as for case requests. You can ask that the request be kept open awhile longer, which you should do directly under the statement you've already made.
 * You may, in your additional statement, point out that you believe one or more of the arbitrators should have recused himself or herself. However, it probably only makes sense to do this if the rationale you perceive for recusal is clear, rather than borderline. In my experience, arbitrators are pretty good about recognizing recusal situations, although as with anything else, mistakes can be made. Also, it would be courteous for you to raise your concern directly with the arbitrator(s) concerned in the first instance.
 * Having said all that, being frank it appears pretty clear to me that your request is not going to be accepted, so I don't know how much more time you want to spend on it. I know that fact is disappointing to you, but I don't want to encourage you to spend a great deal of time pursuing an unlikely result. Still, it is up to you. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Done, and done.  "Disappointing?" The retirement banner on my talk page probably says more than I can explain in words.  I think most newbies would not have hung on as long as I have.  But at this point, it is the policy discussion that interests me, although of course my perspective is from the bottom of the food chain.  Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 04:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I have now posted the followup to the issues raised by the participants, that I previous requested on the case page to have time to prepare: Arbitration/Requests/Case#Response by Neotarf. It really is quite an effort for one person to keep up with such a furry of postings and try to give a considered response. Ironically, I hit "save" just after the ninth arbitrator had posted an opinion. Any advice? Will the participants be willing to look at it? I feel like this is some sort of Alice in Wonderland moment. —Neotarf (talk) 11:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou!
Thanks! Yarmush82 (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Missing word
"When I vote to accept a case, I am engaging in any sort of 'guilt by acceptance.'" (WP:ACN) Did you forget a "not"?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. Fixing immediately! Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for your archive box/list
I happened onto your page and noticed that you were having to repeatedly update a list of archive files because your archives were stored in pages with the format of User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/YYYY/mmm instead of the YYYY/Month format most of the archive box templates automatically find. I had noticed this issue on several other talk pages. Thus, I took some time and updated a couple of the templates. You can now use either of two templates which will automatically find your archives. The first is: The above template also works from within your archive files, so you can use it to navigate around your archives by including it as your archive header.

The other alternative is: However, the MonthlyArchive template currently looks for a large number of different files. Doing so is expensive for the Wikipedia parser, and there are limits. It will not function in addition to the other example here. In fact, two MonthlyArchive templates can not be used on the same page.

You might also want to set up archive indexing which can be done by adding: and creating the page: User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive index with the contents: I have not actually tested the above indexer configuration, so it might be off by a bit. If you don't want to set up the archive indexer, you will want to remove the |index=/Archive index from the archive box and MonthlyArchive templates so you do not have the red link as "Archives" on those boxes. Ok, this post got a bit long, but at least it will be archived off your page in 7 days.Makyen (talk) 10:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your thoughtfulness. This looks like it might be helpful, as what was once a very manageable archives list has gotten longer and longer. I will take a closer look at your suggestions when I have more time. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's link of the day
Student words of wisdom, not even taken from Wikipedia. Enjoy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. I am sad to hear that Saturn is not a single lady. Thanks for sharing that, NYB. Risker (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I must admit, I was laughing not just aloud, but louder than my typical reserved chuckle ... that was hilarious.  Go  Phightins  !  03:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Slade, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rolls-Royce (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Quorum Call
You are welcome. In the United States, the word "table" does not convey the intended meaning of that paragraph, so I thought it best to change it, especially since the article deals with a procedure of the United States Senate.John Paul Parks (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

"tabloids"
John might be "involved" wrt the subject of "tabloids" having removed a large number of refs from articles which used what he describes as "tabloids" and thus verboten sources (mainly the Daily Mail but including others). You might sua sponte examine the slim possibility that he is too close to the trees to see the forest, or something like that :(   Perhaps the person ought to be blocked, but John likely ought not be the one doing it. Collect (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, in general times I agree with what seems to be John's position that "tabloids" are undesirable sources for BLP material. And I'm not sure that removing unsatisfactory sources would constitute "administrator involvement" per se. However, I also see Jay-W's point that the particular use he was making of the material might be considered unproblematic; it certainly is not the sort of gossipmongering that is at the core of the concern about tabloid sourcing. Beyond that, I will address this on the blocked user's talkpage. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

 Season's greetings from Santa and her little helpers

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I'm not particularly well-versed in sock-puppet investigations so I'm a little confused by this comment. Does this mean that a CU was performed? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In general it would mean that a check was performed, though I'd rather not comment on a specific case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Motion that simply restates existing policy
I'm a little concerned about the possible effects of Motion #2 in the Argentine history clarification. I've added my comments to the case, but I figured I'd draw your attention to them since I'm not sure how likely my remarks are to be noticed, and I figured that as the last Arb to endorse the motion you're most likely to have it 'top of mind', as it were.

Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Cheers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My sense from reading various threads about AE lately is that the clarification would be beneficial. Perhaps it might be worthwhile to add at the end of the motion something along the lines of "This is in accordance with the Committee's general intent as to how such restrictions should be interpreted." Incidentally, why haven't you become an arbitrator yourself by now? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Good God, I wouldn't ever want to have to put up with the bullshit the ArbCom has to deal with. I also don't feel comfortable making the disclosures required of Arbitrators.  Relevant, too, is my strong suspicion that I am unelectable, but it's nice of you to make the suggestion.
 * With respect to the motion under consideration, might I suggest that if it is the ArbCom's intent is simply to declare its support for the wording of WP:TBAN in all cases where it is applied, that this is the sort of thing best handled as a separate motion not attached to the remedies of a specific case. In the extant case, it appears that part of the problem is not necessarily that AE admins were overreaching the bounds of WP:TBAN and the original topic ban so much as that the wording of the topic ban itself, in retrospect, may have been a bit too broad.  (Which is not to say that I think such things are easy to calibrate in advance, nor that I am unaware of how much some individuals under such bans like to test those limits.)  Just my two cents.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with TenOfAllTrades (and Sandstein, who has also commented on the clarification page) regarding the second motion in the Argentine History case. If you feel that this clarification is necessary, post it as an independent motion that explicitly reaffirms the language at WP:TBAN (i.e. it doesn't imply that its something new or different), or start a discussion seeking community input about whether that language is still desired (making sure to notify everyone who is currently under a topic ban, and anyone possibly facing one in the currently active cases). Attaching it only to this one case will have implications for the interpretation of every other topic ban out there. Thryduulf (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Returning to this thread, I'll address this concern on the clarifications page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Help needed
Hi, I just logged in an incident on ANI. Check this. I feel that the action by the admin in discussion was harsh, sudden and one sided. Whilst I wait for the discussion on ANI to progress, I am placing a request to you if you can review this independently and give me your feedback. Cheers AKS 
 * I believe this has been addressed by others. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I hear you're a lawyer or something: sanity check
Hey, NYB, you're some kind of lawyer, or so I've heard. There's a discussion over at WT:CSD about CSD, where someone floated the idea of making CSD defined by precedent; i.e. the types of things hat have been deleted in the past is what defines the CSDs of today. My assertion (totally OR, of course) is that precedent, case law, and the like work because of the discussion of such things in the past, not necessarily just the decision; that is to say, precedent lets us move forward without having to re-argue the building blocks of a case over and over again each time. Thus, CSD is a bad case for precedent to reign supreme, since there's never any discussion, and thus no defined rationale that can be carried over into the future. Anyway, I go on for a while; you can read my post there if you want, I suppose. I'm not really asking you to join the discussion particularly, I don't know what your thoughts on CSD are, or even exactly what kind of lawyer you are. But you seem like a reasonable guy at the very least, so generally speaking, is what I'm saying kinda making some sort of sense? I kinda made it up as I went along (standard operating procedure for me), but it sounds pretty good in my head. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * (Placeholder. Will respond to this in the next day or two when I have a little more time.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Finally getting to this; sorry for the delay. Yes, I am indeed some kind of a lawyer. I'm not sure that automatically translates into sanity, however.
 * Without getting into a long discussion of legal philosophy, there are multiple reasons why "precedent" has a place in any legal system, or to a lesser extent, any form of reasoned decision-making. Of these, one is the desire that like cases be treated alike, simply in the interests of fairness. Second is avoiding having to go through the same discussions and analysis over and over again when the underlying issue is the same, exactly as you say. Third is predictability so people can plan their conduct knowing what the rules are (in the context of CSD, I suppose that would be not wasting time posting something that's guaranteed to be deleted, or conversely, not bothering to nominate something that's sure to be kept).
 * I know the feeling of posts sounding better in your head; mine usually do. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * From my observation, Wikipedia is anti-precedent; see arbcom "policy and precedent", WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and (somewhat) WP:NOTTHEM. NE Ent 22:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

About deleted article
Hello Newyorkbrad!

My name is Julia Tretyakova, I am an official represenative of the EXNESS company. On 21th of November the article about our company was deleted by the reason of containing spam and promotion. I didn't agree with this decision, because the article was contained only factual information about the EXNESS company. It didn't contain any spam or ads.

So now I would like to know how to reestablish the article. Also I would like to give the text from the article, because unfortunatelly I didn't save it anywhere.

Dear Newyorkbrad, please help me to solve this problem.

Thank you very much for your attention!

Best gerads, Julia Tretyakova EXNESS Ltd.

Julia.tretyakova (talk) 04:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Julia and Brad; these are possibly relevant. I agree with Huon that WP:42 is the key.  Also, the exness homepage has a popup which explains that their services are not offered to United States citizens... not sure that matters, since I believe they offer services via New Zealand, presumably to English-speaking clientele outside the USA.  Hope this helps.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Some insights on Abigail Taylor's death
Hi there, I noticed you commented on the Death of Abigail Taylor for AfD. Now I know the article is very confusing and conflicting but I remember hearing a lot about this event so I did some extensive research to try to clarify the confusion. Given the new details I hope you can reconsider your view on this article. Thanks,  Jay  Jay What did I do? 20:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The safety issue that resulted in this girl's tragic death should be widely reported and publicized, but it should be done in a way that does not gratuitously magnify the already profound sadness that her family and friends must feel when they think about Abigail every day of their lives. The way this article was written at the time it was AfD'd did not live up to that standard. I am sure that Wikipedians working together in good faith, and with a fair understanding of our values, will be able to find a way that does. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
 W.  D.   Graham  23:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Noticed...
...your AN/I threat at WT:ITN and I responded there a few days ago. Are you going to actually follow this up or was it just a bit of fun, only my time is precious and limited and if I need to respond to people that have attacked me personally and those who allow those attacks to be safely harboured, I'll need to make sure I have a spare five seconds to give a damn and respond at AN/I once and once only. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any problems along these lines since I posted, so there's nothing that needs to be addressed right at the moment. If I have overlooked any problems since I posted, which is quite possible, please let me know where I can find them. If there have been no further problems, then hopefully no action needs to be taken. On the other hands, if the problems resume, then I will take a look and see whether there's any action that I recommend being taken. Of course, if and when I post anything, you will be notified immediately. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it'll be the stuff I've already posted there that's still a problem, i.e. the personal attack by Medeis on Jayron32's page which he protects from me removing. Please do take it to ANI.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If I come to ANI with a two-week-old dispute about a few posts on someone's userpage, the discussion will be shut down with a chorus of "this is stale and doesn't require action." What I'm concerned with is putting a stop to future feuding, especially if it interferes with the operations of the ITN page. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. So the ongoing personal attack isn't of concern, in fact your failure to do anything about it is an advocation of it.  I get it.  Well I guess you just better keep your eyes open at ITN.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't like much like the tone of that. Please don't deliberately make the situation worse than it already is. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And I don't "like much like" the attitude of you and other admins who are deliberately overlooking the personal attack on me. Sure, wade into ITN with your size nines but don't get precious when you're given the bigger picture and refuse to do anything about it.  ANI it should be, as you threatened.  Otherwise, probably best you stay out of these situations that you don't seem prepared to deal with properly.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll take your silence and refusal to remove a personal attack as an indication that you will not be doing anything further about this. Well thanks for your "input".  Noted.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Please don't hassle NYB. There is probably a misunderstanding that can be overcome. Jehochman Talk 19:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there is. There's a misunderstanding that other editors and admins can launch and harbour personal attacks.  Meanwhile NYB makes a half-attempt to do something about something but epic fails.  I never set out to hassle him, in fact he clearly set out to hassle me.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think NYB wants to hassle anybody. If he has hassled you, it was inadvertent.  Around the holidays people can get busy and forget to follow up.  If you want to show me the original problem, I could take a look and try to help you resolve it. Jehochman Talk 22:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, I tried to resolve it but at least two admins, NYB included, have just been content to allow a personal attack to sit there, in fact one has restored it twice, deliberately. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I wiped it clean. Let's see if my edit sticks.  I think Jayron32 and I are on pretty good terms (or we really hate each other; I can't remember which, but we've definitely crossed paths!).  Jehochman Talk 22:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate it. Hopefully it won't need to be taken further, actually wouldn't want to see NYB, J32 et al dragged through ANI for this kind of thing.  Just leaves someone uninvolved to ask Medeis to not post such personal attacks and we're done.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It may be better to tiptoe away from this dispute. If Medeis is not currently posting about you, there is no good in poking him. NYB, thank you for use of your talk page. Jehochman Talk 13:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for actually doing something Jehochman rather than just posting a threat and retreating. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, but please don't take a gratuitous swipe at anybody else. I have a relationship with the owner of that talk page so I can take liberties that others might not be able to do. Jehochman Talk 15:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It was statement of fact. Anyway, case closed for the moment. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Shrill voices
Before using the word "shrill", consider whether the person you are denouncing might have had something important to add to the conversation that would have been lost if they didn't raise their voice to be heard. The hateful insults and attacks directed at me yesterday were not pleasant. I don't fancy you, or anybody else, provoking more of them (though I am sure that was not your intention).

I agree that 28bytes is probably a nice guy with the best intentions. Unfortunately, in this situation "probably" isn't a strong enough assurance. When somebody presents a security risk, you don't give them access to sensitive information, such as Wikipedia's Checkuser and Oversight tools, and ArbCom's confidential communications. I don't know any IT department that would give somebody access to sensitive systems after there had been deceptive disclosures about affiliations and conflicts of interest. Why should the worlds 5th largest website operate to lower standards? Jehochman Talk 13:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Jehochman, Brad didn't make any declaration about the possible importance of what you might have had to say, nor has he ever singled you out as 'shrill'. But when he politely reminded you that you shouldn't take it upon yourself to edit the ArbCom's Noticeboard  – and come on, you've been around long enough to know that making a noticeboard edit isn't actually how Arbs are unseated, or anything close to a calm and measured way to start that process – the accusations and insinuations in your response were pretty darned shrill.
 * The problem is that you can have something important to say – you can even be right – but still say it in such a way that you completely undermine your own ability to make your point effectively and persuasively. Take a step back and look at the current situation.  28bytes has resigned his advanced permissions, and certainly won't be (re)seated on the ArbCom without a very clear affirmation from the Wikipedia community.  At the moment, you have everything that you wanted to get out of this process.  28bytes has already been kicked as thoroughly as possible; it's not necessary to hound editors who may be offering him some emotional support.
 * Don't go looking for a new fight just because someone may have made a mild criticism describing (potentially) you and others as sometimes resorting to an over-the-top style. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not looking for a new fight, and in fact, I have remained silent since the resignation -- except to respond to those who've attacked me. Want me to keep quiet?  Stop talking about me.  People can offer 28bytes emotional support without denigrating somebody else, such as by calling me "shrill".  I didn't want 28bytes off the committee.  This situation was very regrettable and unwanted.  Now please, stop saying what I want or don't want, what I mean or don't mean.  Say what you want and what you mean.  And yes, I was upset and did not communicate very well, especially after people started attacking me. Your point is taken. Jehochman Talk 14:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, you're mistaking a concern about the way that you express your opinion for a desire for you not to express your opinion. The implied attack on Brad's integrity that you made is a far greater insult than the suggestion that you might be among an unspecified group of individuals who have expressed themselves shrilly.  Perhaps as a gesture of good faith it might be constructive for you to make amends to Brad for the way that you attacked him?   But that's enough pot-stirring from me.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it's enough pot-stirring by you. You've muddied this thread and instigated badwill between friends. If NYB has concerns about my comment, I am sure he will address them to me and we will work it out.  I certainly did not attack his integrity, and for a second time I ask you to stop mischaracterizing my comments.  Jehochman Talk 15:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) I deliberately did not identify who (either here or elsewhere) I was referring to in my reference to "shrill voices," but since you (Jehochman) have taken it as a reference to you, I'll respond to that. I have no concern about the substance of the position you took yesterday; you certainly raised reasonable points, although I did not agree with your bottom line as to the best outcome.

However, if you go back and re-read everything you wrote&mdash;perhaps a couple of days from now, to give yourself a little distance&mdash;you may see why the tone with which you pursued your concern was not ideal. You asked 28bytes a question, and when he didn't answer it immediately, you repeated the question, more than once, with a hectoring tone of "you need to answer this." There was no reason to believe he wasn't going to answer it, and on a Sunday afternoon, it was perfectly plausible that he might be offline with his family, or that he might be thinking about how he was going to respond. As we now know, he was probably busy drafting his resignation statement.

In my experience, when you find yourself repeating the same thing in the same discussion for the nth time, it is time to step away for a few hours and make room for other voices. I was also taken aback, when in response to my (deliberately blandly worded) request that you not edit the announcement of the election results, you took that as "condoning lying in the election." As I say, if you re-read the discussion perhaps you will agree that you could have expressed the same views, with the same degree of conviction, in a different fashion.

I have, of course, noted your helpful intervention in another thread on this page. Thank you for that. My thanks to TenOfAllTrades for his comments here as well. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You would be right to say that some of my comments were shrill. I admit that my comments were not ideal, but please recognize that when being attacked by an angry mob, an editor (even an experienced one) may get upset and make regrettable comments.  Perhaps you misread what I wrote: "...why are we condoning..." (emphasis added)  The "we" refers to the entire Wikipedia community, certainly not to you. I never said, nor thought, that you personally condoned anything.  There are more than a few trolls taking advantage of this controversy to take pot shots at people, and there are also good faith editors who've become upset and violated decorum.  There have been a lot of shrill comments on all sides of the issue, and I would appreciate if observers would help suppress the flames wherever they might appear, rather than blaming one side or the other.   Jehochman Talk 16:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your assistance sir. :) Hongirid (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

A secret conspiracy of Masons
That, sir, was clever. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I enjoyed the reference, and what you had to say even more. Glad to someone focused on people.--Tznkai (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts
I have never been a major editor on Wikipedia, I just do some IP editing here and there. But many years ago I found that I do have a "guilty pleasure" on WP: following the political events and ensuing drama associated with WP governance. I follow politics and government in many countries (primarily US and Commonwealth) out of personal interest and for limited professional reasons. So it was that I started reading WP politics around the time you were first elected to the AC (and your outing/quasi-retirement was quite a saga in itself). From the FT2 case days, on through the Undertow saga, the annual Giano and Malleus cases, and now into the era of Elen/Jclemens and 28bytes, the "shocking developments" always seem to make for fascinating reading. The list leaks a few years ago were interesting as well.

As someone who seems to have a professional life touching on real-world controversies, I wonder what your insights are on why there is so much intrigue on an encyclopedia. I suppose on some level it is a result of the intense level of commitment the inner members of WP put into their contributions. This level of committed anonymous political participation surely is unique in history, and should really be looked at from an academic perspective someday.

Anyway, I hope this is taken in the right spirit, as just a note to say that from an outside perspective, the political process (over the long-term) at WP is every bit as interesting as all the small-town case studies I've read in graduate public administration texts. 50.45.159.215 (talk) 10:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You may have answered your own question already. The keyword is "anonymous". I'll step aside and let NYB provide his answer which will probably be longer and more nuanced.  Jehochman Talk 10:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting question which I'll respond to when I have a little more time (see below). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Availability note
I'll have limited online time for the next couple of days given the holiday. Happy New Year to all. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)