Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:31, 29 August 2012

Archives

Index of archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Bagumba

Thanks for addressing your concerns on my talk page. I appreciate that you let me know. I have apologized on the RFA page. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 01:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Commented on your talkpage. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

emigrate-immigrate

Despite reading Grammarist on Emigrate as. immigrate, I think MF has a good point. As an American, we are more used to the term "immigrant" than "emigrant", but I think of my grandparents as immigrants FROM Italy. I would expect them to say they emigrated to the USA, and are now immigrants from Italy. But I confess I'm still not fully settled in the prescriptivist versus descriptivist wars, (Except tor thinking that Fowler was a bit too much.) I tend toward being a descriptivist, and I'm sure that immigrant to is common, even if it shouldn't be. My prescriptivist side refuses to accept the stupid American custom of punctuation inside quotes, I prefer "eat my cake and have it to " over the more common "have my cake and eat it to", but I've largely given up correcting people when they think forte has two syllables.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually I think "immigrants to" is probably OK, and covers the situation where you're talking about a population the members of which may have come from various different places, as in "the residents of XYZ are all immigrants to the United States" My issue is when immigrate is used as a verb, as in "my parents immigrated to the United States". Malleus Fatuorum 17:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, verb versus noun. I confess I deliberately tried to think aboutit without looking at the article in question, and should now do so.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry for butting in but isn't it have my cake and eat it too...Modernist (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I edited the article, so it's now "correct" as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps another way to think about this is if someone said to you "I'm an immigrant", would your question to him be "Where from", or "Where to"? Malleus Fatuorum 18:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that that actually does help conceptualize the question, because if (as is most likely) one would be talking to the person at his or her current place of residence rather than his or her previously one, the answer to the "Where to?" would be obvious. In other words, if I were talking to the person in New York and it was obvious he or she lived here now, "where from?" would be a useful question, whereas "where to?" would be pretty obvious. But if I were attending the International Convention of People Who Have Recently Changed Their Country of Residence, "where did you immigrate to?" would be as reasonable a question as "where did you emigrate from?"

Based on the feedback I've seen on the RfA and your (Malleus's) talkpage and here, I hope you can now accept that "Jones immigrated to the United States in 1950" is standard English, at least in the United States. Nor is this a matter of "tense"; "one million people will immigrate to the United States in 2013" is just as standard. In fact, it's the only way I can think of to express this specific concept. I can't quarrel with your statement that you find the locution jarring, and I accept that, and the comments support my conjecture last night that this may be a usage variation between British English and American English. In any event, I hope you will now reconsider the wording of the introduction to Jeremy Lin as a basis for your RfA oppose, even if you still believe there are other reasons to oppose.

Incidentally: "Not grammar. Diction." as Nero Wolfe and Rex Stout reminded us.

On a different aspect, though coincidentally on the same RfA, do you (Malleus again) seriously contend that I was "bullying" an editor by asking him to withdraw an obvious joke !vote? Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't accept that it's correct usage anywhere in the English speaking world, although I concede that it seems to be relatively common in the US, just as the ridiculous "I could care less" is common. What, in your opinion, is wrong with "one million people will emigrate to the United States in 2013"? The issue as I see it is one of specificity, and the presumed location of where we're speaking from; using "emigrate" in that context is slightly unsatisfactory, because these people will be coming from many different countries, therefore we can't say where they're going to emigrate from. So a reasonable case can be made for "immigrate to" in such non-specific cases, if we're assumed to be writing in the United States. In the particular case that sparked this discussion that's not the case though; we know that Jim's parent's emigrated from Taiwan to the United States. They didn't immigrate to the United States from Taiwan, that's simply an abortion. So no, I won't be doing any rewording of my oppose.

I do contend that your approach to that editor was bullying, as I think his reaction suggests. Why is it so important to you that a candidate should pass unanimously anyway? Malleus Fatuorum 19:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I get what you are saying Malleus, but in all fairness, I don't think Brad did anything intentionally to bully anyone. However, the authority that comes from being an Arb is a mighty large stick in the eyes of many people and can be a little intimidating. Even the admin bit has some undue weight in the eyes of some editors. I'm not that impressed with it but I've learned (sometimes the hard way) that others will take it too seriously, often drastically so, so I try to parse my words carefully. He did seem to take the comments stronger than I think Brad actually said them or meant them, and I just can't see Brad's actions as intentionally trying to intimidate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether intentional or not it was bullying. Malleus Fatuorum 00:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"Bullying", by its very nature, implies intent. Brad influenced him, obviously since that was Brad's intention. Whether that was wise or necessary is a whole other discussion. It does appear that Bzweebl took Brad's comments entirely too seriously, but perhaps you should ask Bzweebl if he felt intimidated, as we may be reading too much into his comment at the RfA. More importantly, to use the term "bully" implies intimidation or threat of harm. which requires intent, and I'm sorry, but I don't see that here. The term might be convenient and colorful, but not accurate, which I feel is below your usual precision. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Then we will simply have to agree to disagree, although I don't understand why you feel enabled to speak on behalf of Newyorkbrad's motivations. Malleus Fatuorum 03:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Malleus, you have the strength of Samson, but today you are jabbing as though you had a Fredrik Reinfeldt haircut---and are as ornery as my grandmother was after I fed her my bran-enhanced oatmeal without knowing about diverticulitis.

Let us all resolve that "I must work harder". Our final destination, the glue factory, nears ever closer. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak of his motivations and can't see inside of his heart, but I can look at his words and I just don't see phrasing that looks to be intimidating or threatening in some way. I concede that admins and Arbs have to be extraordinarily careful in making requests like this and it might have led to a misunderstanding, and that he might have felt intimidated, but I just don't see it as the fault of Brad. And of course, it is fine if we disagree. If you and I agreed on everything, it would likely scare us both :) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

ICE is the US federal agency that deals with those that are attempting to immigrate into the US. If a person is asked what country they have left then it would be "where did you emigrate from".MONGO 15:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "immigrate" and "emigrate," I still say that when I looked at Jeremy Lin the other night, the usage there was correct standard English, or at least correct standard American English. I would have written the disputed sentences the same way, which suggests that they reflect at least an acceptable usage, because unfamiliarity with the grammar and diction of standard English is on the short list of faults I don't have. In fact, when I read the sentences, I honestly couldn't figure out what Malleus was objecting to. Because I understood that he is as familiar with standard English diction and usage as I am, I surmised that this might be an ENGVAR situation, which turned out to be true.

More troublesome to me is the fact that Malleus still considers the usage of "immigrated" in Jeremy Lin to be a good reason, albeit not an independently sufficient reason, for opposing Bagumba's RfA. It is now clear that "immigrated to" as used there is consistent at least with standard American usage, is supported by leading stylebooks and sites, is how many other highly literate Wikipedians would have said it—and it also turns out that Bagumba didn't even write these sentences in the first place. Given Malleus's striving for both accuracy and fairness all over the site, I find it odd that he has stuck with this as a basis for his oppose !vote. Of course, as he correctly points out on the RfA, it is a moot point in the grander scheme of things.

As for the other matter that Malleus has raised, I reject the allegation of bullying. I know bullying and threats and harassment when I see them, and have had to address such situations in arbitration decisions, so an accusation that I've been guilty of that type of behavior is upsetting to me. "Bullying," by definition, requires an intention to coerce someone into doing something. I of course had no such intention, and I will be offended if anyone insists that I did.

More within the realm of reasonable criticism, although I would still disagree with it, would be a concern that my comment could have been taken as bullying, though anyone who knows me would know that that was not meant so. I don't believe that my politely worded request could reasonably have been understood by anyone as bullying or threatening or harassing. I was not even asking an editor to change his or her actual opinion of a candidate or to withdraw his or her seriously intended !vote. I don't know if it is necessary to explain something this obvious, but for those who may not have looked up the context: Bzweebl's initial "neutral" !vote was based on Bagumba's answer to a playful question asking him to name his favorite Dallas Cowboys quarterback. No one could believe that Bzweebl or anyone else thinks that this issue bears on suitability for adminship, so obviously Bzweebl's !vote was a joke.

Within reason, jokes in an RfA are fine, and I have no problem with bringing some lightheartedness to the RfA pages. After all, I'm the one who went through a phase a couple of years ago of casting all my support !votes in rhymed couplets, deliberately leading the tone of the RfA pages from bad to verse. But I think that actually opposing a candidate, and to a lesser extent even casting a neutral !vote on a candidate, should have some sort of serious rationale. That is all that I was saying to Bzweebl, and even as I said it, I added that my concern should be disregarded if there was some serious (i.e. non-joke) issue that I had overlooked. I am sorry if Bzweebl was overly upset by my concern, and I have told him that, but I don't think "bullying" or any approximation of that term is a fair description of what I did or why I did it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall ever having seen you employ analogous logic to a charge of incivility, for instance, and I might find your position a little more convincing if I had. Malleus Fatuorum 17:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

FA Arb case

Is it really appropriate to recuse from part of a request and decline the rest? From what I can tell the case intimately involves Rabbit and your interactions with him were the basis of your partial recusal. My thinking is that it should be a general recusal to avoid any appearance of impropriety.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point, but there's ample precedent to proceed as I have. My intention would be to reevaluate this as things progress, and especially if the case were accepted. The request for arbitration as filed was sufficiently sprawling that it was impossible to tell whether Br'er Rabbit's role would be at the crux of the dispute or peripheral to it, and while I thought that I shouldn't (e.g.) vote on findings or remedies relating to Br'er Rabbit, it would be a bit much for me to find myself recused from voting on a proposed decision that didn't even mention him. I'm sensitive to the proprieties, and I think that in four and one-half years of arbitrating I can't be accused of having voted on any case or proposal where my participation created an issue. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Just a thought

I wonder if you might consider board membership here, at least while we've got our trainer wheels on, or if you have any thoughts about the project? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the offer of board membership, but I don't anticipate that I'd have enough wikitime for this role at least as long as I'm serving as an arbitrator. I will keep an interested eye on your project and work, however, and let you know if and when I have any suggestions. Best regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not in a position to confer board memberships, but I'm pretty sure you'd be very warmly embraced. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Invitation/Asking your contribution

Heated discussion on the renaming of this article. Maybe the article is not very interesting in itself but there is quite an example of a debate on the principle of naming conventions on its talk page. Everybody most welcome. --E4024 (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I've taken a look at this discussion, but don't really have anything to add to the points already made. I do think that there may be a need for a principle that once a given article is moved, or there is a decision not to move it, that there be some sort of time restriction before the same title issue may be raised again. Otherwise, we face the prospect of a given article being under continuous title dispute and RM discussion, which is not conducive to anything else useful getting done. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Question from KC

Is this harassment, in your opinion? I don't want to be forced to explain my actions on every page I edit on WP, or else leave such insinuations open, either. KillerChihuahua 16:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The term "harassment" implies an intent to cause distress to the target. I'm not convinced at this stage that Noetica is deliberately seeking to cause you distress. I am concerned, however, that he has lost his sense of perspective with regard to the importance of this issue. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, if there is no intent, then Noetica is tone-deaf to how his posts appear to others, IMO. I've seen similar rudeness elsewhere aimed at othrs, cloaked as "concern" but coming across as an implied insult. as well as phrasing such as "we know very well where the fault lies." However, I'm willing to ignore it if you are. KillerChihuahua 19:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't say more at this point, in case some part of this situation somehow winds up back before ArbCom (although I certainly hope it will not). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Bat signal

Shhhh. Now everyone knows.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

Hi. When you recently edited Lou DiMuro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Al Clark (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) 11:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Domi arigato, Mister Roboto. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Mediation case

Hi Newyorkbrad —

There's currently a case over at MedCom regarding the capitalization of band names. The participants have agreed to put the matter to a poll of the wider community, which will be closed by an impartial editor. Provided the participants agree, would you be willing to do this? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd be glad to help out if needed. However, as you say, the poll grows out of a mediation case—has it been decided that the mediators themselves aren't the right people to do the closing? Also, what timetable are you on? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

We (the mediators - myself and Mr. Stradivarius) decided to recuse ourselves from judging the poll. When it was first agreed on, there were three options, one of which we had argued against. We proposed that a third party judge the poll, since we'd already expressed an opinion on it. Although the third option was since dropped by consensus, a third party judge would probably still be the best way to ensure impartiality. As far as the timetable, I would say that the poll will probably go public within a week, and run for a set period of least two weeks. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the details. I'll be happy to help with this. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Availability note

Because of family plans, I may have limited Internet time and access over this weekend. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

An invitation for you!

	Hello, Newyorkbrad. We are in the early stages of initiating a project to plan, gain consensus on, and coordinate adding a feature to the main page wherein an article will be listed daily for collaborative improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members.

Please don't allow this to interfere with your family plans. Happy editing! AutomaticStrikeout 21:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Term expiration March 3 vs 4

This has been discussed many times. Most debaters insist in confusing the term with the session. The term was held (and always stated as such in the sources) to end on March 3, the actual session sometimes (not always) was continued after midnight until business was finished. Sometimes the session ended on March 2 (when March 3 was a Sunday), but on the other side, the House sessions started mostly in December and never on March 4, and these same debaters insist that the term began on March 4. You can't eat your cake and have it too. I discussed this very recently again, I'll have to find that talk page again... Kraxler (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I know this has been discussed many times; I believe I was the first to raise the issue, back in 2006, and I think at the time the consensus was for March 4, but obviously this affects a large number of articles so I am sure I've missed multiple discussions over the past couple of years as I've become involved in other wiki-things. So I definitely would appreciate any links you can provide to more recent discussions.

I understand the distinction you are drawing between "term" and "session," but I am not sure that it's relevant. Suppose that in a given Congress, they were efficient and finished all the the business early and adjourned sine die on February 1. The Members' terms still had to end at a given date and time, and the given date and time was at noon on March 4th. Conversely, the term of new Members always began on March 4th, even though the new Congress often didn't convene on that date.

To me, the relevant question is simply: "If you walked into the House or Senate Chamber at 10:00 a.m. on March 4 of an odd-numbered year when Congress was in session, would the Members participating be those of the outgoing Congress or the incoming Congress"? The answer is, the outgoing Congress. And it simply doesn't make sense to me that a Member would be permitted to participate in the House or Senate session on the morning of March 4th, if his or her term had expired on March 3rd.

(The usual response to this point is to draw the distinction between calendar days and legislative days—but this too has always struck me as irrelevant, because terms aren't measured by legislative days. If a given Congress adjourned sine die on March 1st, but the Senate was still on the legislative day of February 15th, we wouldn't report the Senators' terms as having expired on February 15 any more than we would report them as having expired on March 1.)

The principal source of confusion on this issue, I believe, is the Congressional Biographical Directory, which for reasons that remain utterly obscure reports the expiration dates as March 3. This has now been recognized as an error by the Congressional Historians' Offices, and I have a communication from a staff member indicating that over time the dates are being corrected in the Directory, but I acknowledge that this private communication is not a reliable source in and of itself.

Anyway, as I said earlier, I don't have the time or inclination to make a huge wiki-deal of this, but for what it is worth, I am still convinced that all the listings of "March 3" convey inaccurate information, albeit trivially so. I'm still looking forward to the links you can private. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm impressed with your argument, most debaters do not argue at all here, but start right away with personal attacks. But there seem to be a few misunderstandings in your argument:

• The distinction of "term" and "session" is important, because the legal term to which a member has been elected is distinct from the actual session. The session never began at the beginning of the term (pre-20th Am.) and certainly members can sit after the term expired. This phenomenon is known as "holding over." (New York State legislators chosen by the Constitutional Convention in 1777 to represent the areas under British control held over for years, not a few hours...).
• The US Constitution did not mention any time of day for the beginning of the term, and did not mention any date at all for the end of it, it said a term of two years. Certainly a year (as a measure of time) begins on a given day and ends on the previous calendar day of the the next calendar year; like the calendar year begins on January 1 and ends on December 31. A span from March 4, year, to March 4, year+1, was in olden times known as "a year and a day", and had a legal distinction of its own.
• The "legislative day" is intended to mean that although midnight had passed, the proceedings were recorded in the journal under the "previous" date, even if the session ended let's say at 4 a.m., possibly to avoid confusion with proceedings started in the morning, after the members had slept, since the reading, and the approval, of the minutes was necessary to begin a new legislative day. This innocent tradition was much time later used on the last day of the session to continue sitting until business was finished. The declaration about "the noon hour having arrived, I declare adjourned" was used once in history, perhaps, but has no legal status. It possibly was used because the noon hour had passed long ago, on that day... There is to my knowledge no occasion when a "legislative day" lasted longer than two calendar days.
• The Congressional Biographical Directory is full of mistakes, and I'm very cautious to use it as a source, since it is not really reliable. I also noticed that the listings of the Congress members once available at the GPO website, were taken off the air. So the Congressional Historian got cold feet? Interesting. Kraxler (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

(Thanks for your detailed comments. I'll respond this evening.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

My last discussion of this was here. My main "source", the listings of the GPO (which were excellent, and contained only two mistakes I could identify), have disappeared.

Somebody gave this "source" about the famous resolution of 1851. Although published on the U.S. Senate website, it contains the blatantly false statement "Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis declared that his term had expired and refused to vote when further roll calls were ordered." In the actual Senate Journal of this session (the ultimate source) you can read: on page 251: "Mr. Mason expressed a doubt whether the term for which he had been chosen had not expired; and desired, if he continued to act, to be qualified as a senator for the ensuing term." Thereupon this resolution was passed: "That inasmuch as the second session of the thirty-first Congress does not expire under the constitution until 12 o'clock on the 4th of March instant, the honorable James M. Mason, a senator elect from the State of Virginia, is not entitled to take the oath of office at this time, to wit: on the 4th of March at one o'clock a. m." The preamble of this resolution is also blatantly false, as the U.S. Constitution does not state any time of day for either the beginning or the end of a congressional term. Only the 20th Amendment stated expressly "at noon on January 3." You can also read on page 280 that the Senate adjourned on "March 3, 1851" (no mention of "noon") although we know that the session continued a few hours after midnight. This statement of the ending date was the original reason to give March 3 as the legal term end, so I guess the Congressional Historian (Is this the same person who wrote the text on the US Senate page??) got confused by our discussions here, but I think he should reload the listings for the time being and take further action after our discussion came to a conclusion. Kraxler (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

One Day in Hackney

I didn't want to say this on the Requests page, but you might want to edit this post in the "One Night in Hackney" section. Pepole might think it was intended humorously. Scolaire (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess you couldn't be bothered trying to figure out what I was telling you. Sorry for not being more specific. You referred to One Night in Hackney as "One Day in Hackney" throughout. Scolaire (talk) 11:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I did read through my post there about five times after I saw your note, and I completely missed your point, so thanks for coming back and clarifying. I figured you were probably teasing me about my writing style and the convoluted nature of my thought process there (A, except B, except C, except D ...). I'll fix it now. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your initial and especially the continued support during my RfA. I hope to maintain your trust in me.—Bagumba (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Possibly fake IRC logs

Hi, an editor has received purported IRC logs that are alleged to show gaming of wikipedia. The logs appear to come from a block editor. I was suggesting they be forwarded on to arbcom rather than people speculating on them. Can you comment here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Possible_attempted_outing about whether that is a good idea or not? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I won't have a chance to look at this in any detail until tonight, but in general, the Arbitration Committee would only be interested in reviewing IRC logs, or any other form of off-wiki communication, if they reflect a very serious issue concerning manipulation of project decision-making, harassment of editors, threats, and so forth. (The Committee discussed some of the relevant considerations in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European mailing list#Principles.) If and only if the level of seriousness in the current situation rises to that level, it might be appropriate to forward the logs to the Committee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newyorkbrad (talk • contribs) 14:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

As per the ANI thread, someone forwarded the alleged log to ArbCom, and it's been reliably determined that it is not genuine. Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Dan James Pantone

Hi, Brad. You recently edited this article. Also, someone oversighted a couple of IP edits and I'm guessing it may have been you.

FYI, take a look at:

• Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Dan James Pantone

--A. B. 20:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

EncycloPetey

In response to this comment from you on the RFAR...

It is hardly surprising that EncycloPetey (EP) should be considering leaving the project. ArbCom is treating him horribly. He's already guilty even before he had a chance to respond. Nothing ArbCom can do in waiting 24-36 hours is going to change the direction of this freight train. He's been here 7 years, an administrator for 5, never blocked, contributed over 30,000 edits...and BOOM he's being stripped of his admin bit. Whatever happened to admins not being expected to be perfect?

I don't think ArbCom should allow itself to be held hostage to the idea they shouldn't act because the admin might leave the project. Neither should they be so quick to hang an admin who has made a few mistakes. It is precisely ArbCom's rush to judgment, even before EP had a chance to respond, that has been the catalyst to his actions.

At User_talk:EncycloPetey#Arbitration_request there are comments from myself and others suggesting he should turn in his administrator bit. In five years, he's used his administrator privileges less than 400 times. He doesn't really need the bit, and getting rid of it is an easy way to end the dispute. I'm hoping he accepts, as it is I think the only way he'll come away from this and still be an editor.

More abstractly; I think in non-emergency situations such as this, ArbCom should not be voting to accept/reject a case until all named parties have had an opportunity to respond, up to a (arbitrary) limit of N days. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)