User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2008/Feb

Castles in the Air, now half price!

If you're concerned with believing Tony Sidaway's changes of heart, you might want to take a look at user talk:Thatcher, where Tony seems to be... well... recharacterizing everything. If "civility" meant people getting insulted and being upset about it, instead of people deciding to be insulted on behalf of people, then this would be pretty clear incivility. Geogre (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, I'm stating the facts, and not particularly contentious ones. My intention isn't to upset anybody. I'll stop now since I seem to be upsetting at least one person. --Tony Sidaway 23:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Tony says he is going to stop discussing this topic. I hope the other users involved will also agree to drop the subject for the day. Having read the discussion across a variety talk pages, I don't think much can be gained from further discussion today. FloNight (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've learned my lesson here. I absolutely must avoid discussing this subject altogether. I am removing the IRC case and all related talk pages from my watchlist. I will read any comments about the subject on my talk page (unavoidable) but will only reply to acknowledge that I have read them. --Tony Sidaway 00:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The point that I was making was that Bishonen, the aggrieved party (remember the concept of being aggrieved), has documented by e-mail the situation, according to Thatcher. That is a single statement. However, there has been a change here, there, a back step, a forward step, and all sort of things as Tony has continued to say, 1) nothing happened, 2) he's the victim, 3) something happened and he's sorry, 4) something happened, but he was the victim, 5) nothing happened worth mentioning, etc. I.e. it keeps getting chewed and chewed and chewed. Bishonen has been utterly silent and unmoving: she has offered a single account. Those of us offended by the reaction to Tony's statement have been consistently saying that we're all reconvening if there is no progress on the problem that was unresolved last time: accountability for misbehavior there, solid policies, clear ability to address problems, Wikipedia standards on this thing. Thatcher had a pretty good idea: make a noticeboard. Well, Tony was going rather... excitable... in saying that it wasn't needed, wasn't called for, won't work, and isn't right. In the process, more recharacterizing. (BTW, Flo, this is not discussing the case, but discussing why I brought this up here.) I.e., it was telling a new tale, and one where, again, Bishonen (the aggrieved party... again, remember that?) gets called the attacker. I've seen the full exchange, and I see a scolding of Tony for running on and on about how "we admins" act and dragging people through the dirt in absentia. So, if Brad were inclined to believe the changes of heart, this discussion might well be illuminating. Geogre (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Page protection request

Please can you fully-protect Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TheM62Manchester and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sunfazer for me - I have also added a notice about the fact the accounts are self-admitted role accounts at the top of the RFA.

Thanks, --Solumeiras (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a major need to protect the RfA's to ensure that they are labelled with these particular templates. If you disagree, you can file a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection to get input from one or more other administrators. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• I see. However, there's an admin who keeps assuming that I have something to do with these indefinitely-blocked users, despite the fact a checkuser about me said that I was Unrelated to them, which I am. It is causing me wikistress and I don't know how to handle it. --Solumeiras (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry to hear that, but if that administrator doesn't believe you, then putting a template on top of their pages isn't going to make him change his mind, I don't think. You should call the attention of that admin to the checkuser result, but you've probably done that already. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The admin who accused me of being a sockpuppet was the same one who requested the checkuser as well. I don't want to reveal who he is because it might cause enmity on here. I didn't put those messages up with the intention of making him change his mind - but just as a watning. He still does not believe me despite me giving a full overview of my editing history on my userpage. I've just emailed Kirill asking him to pass on a message to Arbcom-l about this for me. But away from all that, how's things?? I'm on wikibreak from tomorrow, should be back on Thursday or Friday hopefully. Sorry for discussing this, it was probably a bad topic to mention on here. --Solumeiras (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

IRC drama

Thanks, Brad, for saying this - that was long overdue. By the way, righteous indignation seems to be considered "the only form of anger which is not sinful", so you seem to be on the safe side in that respect ;-) Kosebamse (talk) 07:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Your gift

LOL! Newyorkbrad gave me a barnstar! :D I got a barnstar from arbitrator, admin, and junior godking (right behind teh Jimbo of course). Must add that to my Wikipedia transcript for when I apply for my higher role. Hmm....of all the people on WP...never would've thought one from you. Thanks :]. -- R ^TalkContribs_@ 00:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This makes, what, the 4^th barnstar Newyorkbrad has ever given out? R must look a lot like this right now: —Animum (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Srsly! No wai! I never knew NYB has only given out 3 barnstars before O.o. I'll add that to my transcript to. Now I'll be sure to pass! I heard barnstars from NYB are an automatic pass and is the key to gaming the system. :D -- R ^TalkContribs_@ 01:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully request that I also receive a barnstar. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Why Ryan? So it's on your transcript so that you'll pass Wikipedia:Requests for taking over Jimbo's place after the coup? That's a good reason :D. -- R ^TalkContribs_@ 03:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad will give this barnstar to someone deserving, AND I MEAN DESERVING! :-P Losing every trace of sanity he has left, —Animum (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Animum, you haven't even responded to the message I left on your talk today. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I put my name on that list? Otherwise NYB looks like he is supporting the single letter cabal... ^Avruchtalk 03:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What, "Animum" is a single letter? —Animum (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Calmness in arbitration comments

Hi Brad. I've read the post that Kosebamse pointed out above, and I hope you don't mind me responding to it here? Your anger (or frustration) does come across clearly there and is rather uncharacteristic for you (which is why I came to your talk page to discuss it with you). I think that such frustration or anger can be problematic. I personally always try never to edit in anger, and I similarly think that arbitration comments that come across as angry or frustrated are not as effective as those that are unfailingly calm, but still come across as stern. I think what I am saying is that the same message could have been made without some of the more frustrated comments (eg. "sick, sick, sick to death of every aspect of this entire situation"). If you feel that things like that needed to be said, fair enough, but I can understand those who will react with a "they aren't listening" attitude. There have been some good points made, and constructive criticism made, and a generalised reaction like this is unhelpful.

You also used overstatements (eg. "umpteenth" and "now and forever"), which either exaggerate the situation or leave things hanging in the air until some future date when you retract the "forever" comment - there are good reasons why there are sunset clauses and clear endpoints for probations. I particularly dislike broad brushsweeps (generalisations) like the one you have made (eg. "every aspect"), because they inevitably lead to misunderstandings and editors (especially those who are less assured of themselves) being uncertain as to whether the comments apply to them. You even seem to say this yourself when you responded to Paul in a later proposed remedy: "I'm not sure that "all" editors in the edit-war deserve to be "admonished," as the participation of some was relatively slight." Compare this to the wording of proposed remedy 13: "All parties in this case are strongly cautioned..." You don't seem to have picked up on the "all" there. I've already pointed out to FloNight on the talk page that a broad term like "all parties" includes a lot of incidental people, including the bainer. I have similar problems with the non-naming that you use: "The party, who has, for the umpteenth time..."; "The editors who have been directing personal attacks..."; "The parties who are highly valued...". I realise that naming people can cause problems, but equally I hope you can see my point that not naming people can cause problems. Put it this way: in a year's time you may still be able to list who you were referring to here, but will others? And if you don't remember in a year's time who you were referring to, what is the point of avoiding names like that?

As I said, I realise your patience is not infinite, but I've always had a poor opinion of the various "exhausted the patience of" clauses (both in Arbcom and in Community Ban discussions). It is not the people whose patience has been exhausted that should be enacting remedies, but the people whose patience hasn't been exhausted. Otherwise you get the situation where someone may still, in good faith and with little thanks, be working to calm a situation, or guide or mentor an editor (sometimes with some degree of success), getting shouted down by those who have had their "patience exhausted". If those who shout loudest that their patience has been exhausted are listened to, doesn't that discourage the thankless task of those who are prepared to put time and effort into continuing to resolve a situation (I'm talking in general about community bans here)?

I've responded at some length here because I feel strongly about these issues. I hope you will be able to find the time to respond here or elsewhere to the points I've raised. Carcharoth (talk) 09:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughts and the attention you've given to the comments I posted. I would prefer to let those comments speak for themselves, at least for awhile, but I will bear your reaction in mind as I continue to work on cases going forward. One thing to bear in mind, though, is that the language I used was in the context of one person's opinion—just my personal explanation for voting the way I did, and an articulation of my current thinking in relation to the case. I agree that open-ended language such as a request lasting "forever," or avoiding identifying parties by name in the interest of avoiding further divisiveness, might not be appropriate if what I had written was to be part of the actual decision of the case. Thanks again for your thoughtful response. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for taking the (rather minor) criticism so well. I usually agree with Deskana below, with the caveat that sometimes shorter comments are better. I do feel rather strongly that those commenting help arbitrators keep some sense of proportion, but equally I realise it must be hard to arbitrate under such close scrutiny. Sometimes being all things to all people is not possible. Carcharoth (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...

I think were someone to analyse my most recent contributions, that "per Newyorkbrad" would show up in over half of them! I never seem to have anything to add once you've commented. I must try to make comments before you so I don't appear like a lemon ;-) --Deskana (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

What does this mean?

What does "avoid discussing matters that have consistently proved divisive" mean? --Tony Sidaway 18:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The most important part is to stop discussing the conversations in the channel that re-started all of the controversy. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I left the channel, permanently, before the arbitration case began. I no longer discuss the conduct of those involved in the case, on or off wiki. As I said earlier, others are perfectly capable of making the relevant comments, and have not been slow to do so. --Tony Sidaway 18:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That is helpful and I hope you can continue on the same path. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Injunction in MTC template

It can; however, I had to add another feature to the {{ACVoting}} template when there's both injunctions and motions active in voting. However, the motion is now moot to the Motion to Close, so I fixed it (the {{Motion to close}} doesn't have a switch for both injunctions and motions at the same time). Cheers, Daniel (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw what you did and I agree with it. There will always be some debatable cases about which category a case belongs in, but that's not the template's fault. By the way, I'm still waiting to hear from other arbitrators regarding the contradiction about measuring the 24-hour period for injunctions. If no one else cares, maybe we'll let you decide which rule is best. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Or option c) - Daniel choose which injunctions he wishes to pass and which he wishes to scrap entirely :) Daniel (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI Thread (SqueakBox)

Brad, you may want to weigh in on the closure of the thread at ANI. I attempted to close the thread and mark it 'resolved' in order to direct future comments and questions to ArbCom, but the archiving was reverted (and reimposed, and reverted?). Apparently your comment is not being seen as definitive that future questions regarding the userpage deletion should be routed through the Committee. ^Avruchtalk 18:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, since you said that "Any further discussion SHOULD be brought to ArbCom privately and not MUST be brought to ArbCom privately, they can feel free to ignore it. (yes, there is an actual discussion on User talk:Ssbohio‎ about Should versus Must. As I said there, it all smacks of "It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is". SirFozzie (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal information isn't being discussed at AN/I, so there's no need for the discussion to move off-wiki. SirFozzie (and others) believe that you were issuing an order as a member of ArbCom; I (and others) believe that you were making a statement of what you think should happen. I have confidence that if you wanted to instruct, rather than suggest, you would have, and if you wanted to speak for ArbCom, you would have done that, too. --SSBohio 19:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I was offline most of the day, and will admit that I'm stunned by the amount of drama that has arisen concerning this particular matter. I don't have much time now and will post more about this tomorrow. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

An update in case you haven't been following the noticeboards - Guettarda (who was offline during the previous thread) came back today and issued an NPA warning to Swatjester. Swatjester replied, and Guettarda blocked him (!) under NPA. Swatjester made an edit summary about leaving Wikipedia. This is like the drama spiral of death. ^Avruchtalk 16:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Request

Hey NYBrad, I need to ask a favour. Can the article UN Security Council Resolutions Armenia-Azerbaijan be undeleted with the rest of what Ehud has created and which were later deleted? I need it for some of the evidence, it's important. Thanks - Fedayee (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Please ask one of the current Arbitration Committee Clerks who is an adminstrator to go through the articles and temporarily restore as necessary. I know some of the Clerks have this page watchlisted and will be glad to take a look at this request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

IRC channel concerns

"I sense that concerns regarding the channel are rightly less than they were a year ago..." - I'm not sure if you are aware, but there have been several incidents in recent days that throw the channel in a poor light. Effectively, people are discussing things on IRC and then carrying out actions without first seeking input from the much wider community available on Wikipedia, and then trying to shrug off later concerns. See the talk page at the proposed decision page. These seem to be judgment issues about Wikipedia process and content (Main Page deletion and arbitration enforcement), rather than civility and personality issues. In other words, the IRC channel's use as a "sanity check" seems to not be foolproof, and sometimes a "sanity check" on Wikipedia gets better results. Carcharoth (talk) 12:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

We need a sense of proportion. IRC regularly functions as a sanity check, and I've often talked people, or been talked, out of rash action there. Does the opposite happen? Well maybe occasionally, although I've seen very little evidence. The mainpage deletion was just some gullible doofus, and totally incidental to which IRC channel it happened in. Unless you want freenode to shut down, that's not something we can remedy. Indeed if such idiotic conversations are going to happen, better they happen in a channel of clued users where someone will usually (although not in this case) shout halt. I tell you honestly the most vicious things I've witnessed in iRC have not been in #admins, but in small group channels where everyone assumes they are amongst friends - there I've seen bad blocks plotted, and little chance of an admin with a different perspective shouting halt, or leaking logs. Shut #admins down, and all you will do is increase irc cabals of the like-minded, and popular people starting channels from which they exclude those they dislike. Yes, IRC can at times be a real problem for wikipedia, but #admins usually serves to mitigate the worst abuses by having a fairly liberal access policy for admins.--Doc^g 12:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not suggesting any attempt be made to shut the channel down. Just manage it better and make it more transparent, and acknowledge that "I sense that concerns regarding the channel are rightly less than they were a year ago..." might not be quite true. Sensing should be deprecated in favour of scrutinising the evidence. The point remains that by its nature IRC needs to be self-regulating, and that self-regulation doesn't always work, so it seems some form on on-wiki stricture needs to encourage self-regulation (keeping people on their toes), with ArbCom making crystal clear that it will over-ride such self-regulation and review channel logs and take action if needed. Oh, and for all admins to have access and for arbcom to investigate if it seems any admins are being denied access or there is stonewalling or feet-dragging. Carcharoth (talk) 13:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to see anyone make a good argument that the channel shouldn't be open-access, albeit moderated, with only administrators getting +v. Am I missing something fundamental? Jouster  (whisper) 17:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite a lot really. If anyone can listen in (via access and/or logs) then trolls, problem users etc can too. If they are listening in, admins will simply take discussion elsewhere and the channel will die. You might as well shut it down (and drive the discussion into totally unmonitored fora.--Doc^g 18:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

(To Carcharoth) In the Durova case, a group of people got on an email list and eventually one of them did something stupid. In the Bluemarine case, someone hacked into Bluemarine's Gmail account and posted Gchat logs allegedly showing improper communication (the communications were not improper, for the record). When Carnildo blocked Giano, he did it after an IRC session. Just today, Guetterda's block of SWATJester was widely seen as a bad idea and as far as I know, he talked to no one about it first. The point is that admins sometimes do stupid things and they have to be responsible for their actions. "IRC made me do it" and "IRC made him do it so ban IRC" are two sides of the same false argument.

(To Jouster) IRC channels can be created by any person for any reason, and as long as there is always at least one person in the channel it will stay active. If the admins channel is banned there is nothing to prevent a group of admins from creating #blue-harvest or #wikipedia-fuzzy-bunnies for private discussions. The difference would be that access to these hidden channels would be invite only, meaning that the participants would be likely be self-selected to think alike. The only IRC reform needed is to work on civility issues (including transparency in response to problems) in the current #admins channel so that more admins feel like participating, because with more participants you increase the likelihood of someone saying, "That's a stupid idea" before it becomes a stupid action. Thatcher 18:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And those who are civil but give bad advice or egg people on in a mob or groupthink mentality? On Wikipedia, such actions are transparent, and people can be identified as giving bad advice. On IRC, there is less "memory" and people may nor remember who it was that gave bad advice last time. It is a more transient medium, and takes more work to review and keep in check and self-regulate. If all the logs were kept and archived for a year, and arbcom could review any one particular person's contributions, then that might work. But that sounds like Big Brother to me. Where does the balance lie? Carcharoth (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The transparency we get from discussing things on the wiki is a benefit of the wiki, and it's one good reason why "somebody on IRC told me to make the block" is fatuous excuse for a bad administrative action.

But it isn't a feature of other forms of discussion about the wiki--if I discuss Wikipedia matters face-to-face with my wife, or an acquaintance who also happens to be involved in Wikipedia, or in private email or on a closed IRC channel or via instant messenger, telephone, skype, letter, fax, telegram, closed internet forum, or in a meeting of the Cabinet convened by the Prime Minister, the benefits of the wiki don't carry over, and trying to alter those mediums of communication so that they have the same features as a wiki is never going to work. --Tony Sidaway 19:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

IRC Arbcom

You (and a couple of other arbitrators) specifically objected to warlike in principle 12.1. FT2 has suggested antagonistic. I'd like to suggest two additional alternatives—confrontational or provocative. I believe that both would accurately characterize the actions described, and eliminate the warrior imagery that has unsettled the ArbCom members. Horologium (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Instigative (I had to look it up, it is in fact a word) is another possibility. Horologium (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:BQZip01/Comments#User:BQZip01.2FComments

If you remember, you weighed in on the use of user pages to draft a future RFC, and whether such use might count as an attack page if not promptly converted from a personal on-wiki collection of evidence about a person into an actual RFC or ArbCom case. The above is an ongoing discussion of one such user page; part of the question is what counts as a "reasonable" period of time to bring the RFC or delete the draft. (Opinions differ from "a few days" to "several months.") The discussion seems to be floundering a bit on what this policy means, so, if you're interested, I thought you might have input to add. (If not, sorry to bug you.) Thanks. --TheOtherBob 15:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up, but I think I am going to stay out of this one so that I can be open-minded if some aspect of this situation winds up before the Arbitration Committee someday (though I certainly hope it doesn't come to that!). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Email

ping. - Philippe | Talk 20:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Received; will respond tonight or tomorrow. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

DYK!

On 6 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Herbert Jay Stern, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's February :-) Nag, nag, nag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep. :) And I'm working on it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Need some help Brad? I really want to help get an article featured and I'm happy to offer my services when you need it. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you want to help Ryan? Don't tell me you're trying to game RFA. O.o -- R ^TalkContribs_@ 22:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Re-sysopping

Newyorkbrad, I've been looking through the history of this talk page and I fail to understand why I didn't thank you for your comments over at the bureaucrat's noticeboard the other day. Your reasoned response and calm approach, combined with the will of some of the other community enabled me to be re-sysopped. I'm pulling out all the stops with internet privacy this time around. I would like to say thank you once again. Best regards, Rudget. 22:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I hope things go well for you. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"None of our policies come with an 'except Giano' clause"

Come off it. Nobody who upholds the special but invisible "except important people like David Gerard and his friends" clause, or the "except arbitrators like Fred Bauder" clause—upholds them whether by politic silence or other means—has a moral right to be smug about "special clauses" for regular editors like Giano. Why Bishonen, I do believe you're in one of your cross moods. Bishonen | talk 17:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC).

I find it useful, on Wikipedia as elsewhere, when I take a position that is at odds with that of most of my colleagues, to make it clear that I have considered and grappled with the arguments on the other side even if I wind up in disagreement with them. The substance of my post you are referring to (those interested can refer to the "enforcement" section of the IRC case proposed decision) was that I still did not support the remedy about to be imposed against Giano and that I very much regretted that he, and possibly others, are planning to leave the project over it. Given recent events, I considered that that position would have little credibility if I didn't acknowledge that there were arguments for a contrary view.

I fear that isolating on only one sentence from my comments, rather than taking them in their entirety, is a bit unfair. I also fear that I don't understand your reference to David Gerard, whose behavior I regretted though I did not believe it required an arbitration remedy; and I also don't understand how you could possibly believe I have been uncritical of Fred Bauder over the past 18 months.

But please continue bitterly sniping at the people who agree with you 90% of the time, because they don't agree with you 100% of the time. This is a very productive and collegial way to proceed, I don't think. No need to reply here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(Calm down, Brad. Take a deep breath.) If that's a warning to stay off your page, I will very soon. I just want to say that we seem to be speaking at cross-purposes: I was talking about the special policy exemptions as invisibly upheld on the Proposed Decision page; not about the past 18 months or whatever. I may have missed it, it's a long page, but I can't see any breath of criticism from you towards either Gerard or Bauder on the PD page, even though they've played important roles in the case. Negative roles, IMO. Sorry it wasn't clear. Bishonen | talk 18:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC).

As far as I am concerned, you are welcome at all times on this page, or any page. As for the merits of the case, at this point I should probably let my (overly) lengthy comments all over the proposed decision and its talkpage speak for themselves. I am one member of a committee of 15, and doing the best that I can. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In a case in which the issue of how one handles oneself in heated disputes featured so prominently, that Fred's tone was unhelpful and unbecoming seems so obvious is hardly needs stated. An (ex)Arb should know better than to air his thoughts in such an unguarded and provocative manner. I think it unnecessary to chide Brad for a failure to state the obvious. However, I think it is also unfortunate that parties have gone into a righteous rage about the conduct of an arbitrator, when we would all do the project more good to self-reflect on how we handle our own civility and rhetorical invective in heated debates and at times of frustration (and I certainly include myself in that). Everyone should perhaps stop and look in the mirror.--Doc^g 19:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, what policy is it that Giano is supposed to have violated specifically? What policy has he violated that Tony (not disruptive) and Gerard (not disruptive, despite insults on talk) and Sandifer did not? What policy and where is it that a supposed exception would be made? No one answers that. It's just, "Oh, for a long time (vague wave)." That inspires confidence. Utgard Loki (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Feh. The root of all this has still not been delt with (irc admins). And with the major irritants regarding dealing with it now leaving the project (appearantly), it seems the drive to deal with it will get swept under the rug. messy irc kill, but a kill none-the-less, with 'acceptable collateral damage'. good luck. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the list of involved parties, and of those listed, only two have not logged in and edited Wikipedia today. Irpen, who last edited on December 28, and Phil Sandifer, who last edited yesterday. --Tony Sidaway 19:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Very true, Tony. Giano has just finished clearing out his user space, and Bishonen has indicated up above that Brad need not worry about her returning to his page anymore. Risker (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In addition, bishonen has deleted her alternate humor account's userpages. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite concerned that it is alleged by User:Rocksanddirt that the arbitration committee has collaborated in a messy IRC kill, and unless I'm mistaken in my interpretation the "kill" in question is the projected voluntary departure from Wikipedia of those two editors. Haven't we all been working to heal those wounds over the past month? --Tony Sidaway 00:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You understood my not very clear comment well! I think that you have done quite a bit to make it better, once you understood your role in the problem. You (tony) seem to be a bit of the exception in this case. Also, most of the arbcom (via their comments) have been helpful. Many other involved and uninvolved folks have not been very helpful in resolving the problems, and there have been several comments of the variety that "the sooner they go the better". --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought I understood everything up to the last sentence, which appeared to reverse the meaning in the manner of a satire. Could you explain what you're referring to there? --Tony Sidaway 01:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar for being nice and making good arguments

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		First thing we do, is pat a lawyer on the back! Bearian'sBooties (talk) 03:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Dissent and the ArbCom Process

Hi, Newyorkbrad. I know from above (and from the postings on the decision page) that you chose not to post your alternative remedies only to see them voted down. I ask that you now reconsider this decision. I expect that Adam will (anonymously) watch to see what happens. Please, take the small window that remains to show Adam and the community that the entire Committee is not trying to destroy him. Show the community that someone has seen the RfC, and is willing to exercise their judgement and advocate a position that is just. As far as I can see, you are the only one who has any chance to salvage anything positive out of this debacle. Please, let us see what was proposed and voted down, and allow the community to form its own views of ArbCom. Maybe if we could see why ArbCom is acting the way it is, some community members might adopt a less jaundiced view. Jay*Jay (talk) 07:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was travelling over the weekend and did not have a chance to respond here earlier. Over the past week I considered further whether to re-post alternative proposals, in part for the reason you suggested. I concluded that the consensus within the committee remained in favor of the proposed remedy that was ultimately adopted, despite my own disagreement with it. I have commented extensively on the proposed decision page and its talkpage, and there has also been some offline correspondence. I am confident that the individual who was a subject of this case is fully aware that I was not in agreement with the majority determination. Thanks for your comments and concern. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

RfAr/JzG

The diffs being gathered are actually for a RfC, though considering how RfCs involving people like JzG have typically gone, they may end up being RfArb evidence. Viridae^Talk 01:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, being on the committee I won't comment further, except to say that I hope that an arbitration case will prove not to be necessary. Of course I will evaluate any request with an open mind if one is filed. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Brad, I always hope it won't come to an arbitration case too, not my cup of tea. Viridae^Talk 02:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope that an ArbCom case won't be necessary either. Cla68 (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Some what related, see User talk:Allstarecho#Just a hobby. And in the famous words of The Mentors, My erection is over, my erection is over. ;) - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 02:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not the song I had in mind, but I don't propose to identify on-wiki the one that I did. I just hope I responded adequately to your allegation of a missing sense of humor. There's a time and a place for everything. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

lol I know which one. Actually, I thought it was the appropriate time and place.. everyone so up tight and an RFA that I didn't even request.. just lightened the mood a bit and let people know it really isn't that serious. My apologies if you were offended. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 02:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Solumeiras

A little while back at User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2008/Feb#Page protection request you discussed my sockpuppetry allegations with Solumeiras. I still believe this sockpuppetry is ongoing and invite comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sockpuppetry of Solumeiras.3F. Thanks, Metros (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the discussion but don't have much to add to what the checkusers have indicated. Thanks for the heads up. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Google and project space

I have no objection to courtesy-blanking this talkpage, but I was under the impression that steps had been taken so that arbitration pages and other project-space pages would no longer show up in Google searches. Is that not the case? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I wish they would make this so, Brad. Recently I asked another admin to blank (and move from Sarah Ewart to Sarah) Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-11 Litch-Sarah because it was the very first hit in a google search of my full name [1]. Unfortunately it's still showing up on Google but I guess it will eventually drop down the page. I wish the devs would make it so that project pages didn't show up. I find it really upsetting that the first hit for my full real name is a page that calls me "abrasive" etc. Sarah 05:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I really was under the impression that this had been done ... and I know I've seen comments made along the lines of "we don't need to blank this AfD about a living person because Wikipedia space pages no longer show up in searches, and even "darn, I was looking for a comment someone made about X issue, but I can't find it because project space isn't searchable any more." Can someone reading here perhaps clear up where we stand on this? If not I will investigate further on the mailing list or ANI. FYI, if you hadn't already had that page blanked and name-changed, I would have done it myself. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that project space is searchable, and indeed I have managed to track down obscure comments by using Google. Losing that function would be annoying. I think blanking pages is best. One possibility is that people are mirroring projectspace (don't think they should be), and thus hits are showing up that way? It could also just be a delay. I once followed a page on Google and mirrors after it had been deleted. It took months for some of the mirrors to update. Can't remember how long Google took. Carcharoth (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Closing cases

BTW, I've noticed the tailspin taking place at the end of the MatthewHoffman arbitration case, including the comments on Jimbo's talk page. Closing the case quickly is probably a good idea, but are there other (off-wiki) reasons why a motion has been made to close the case ASAP/instanter? The appearance is that this is being done in great haste, despite the case having been open for... <checks> ...over 2 months now. This is a general principle I am concerned about, and which I commented on here. The full quote of the relevant bit is:

"What is the normal procedure when voting on closing has started [...]? Are there checks and balances in place to prevent single arbitrators, or groups of arbitrators chosing the right moment to vote a proposed section through and then vote to close? "24 hours from the first motion" doesn't seem to apply here. Is it also a convention to wait for all voting arbitrators to vote in the closing motion, or can a closing motion pass before all arbitrators have had a chance to vote?"

I'd be interested in your thoughts on this. Carcharoth (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The 24-hour waiting period is designed for the exact purpose you cite, which is why it is normally observed, and normally can only be overridden by motion (and I made the motion in this case, although another arbitrator suggested that the Clerks could just go ahead and do it). In this case, there were specific reasons for my having concluded last night that the case needed to be closed immediately. I would prefer not to discuss all of them on-wiki, but one of them was that a user involved in the case was requesting a rename away from his real-world name, as a matter of urgency as part of a right-to-vanish request, and the bureaucrats were reluctant to act on the rename request while the user was involved in a pending arbitration case. Also relevant was the fact that the issue on which arbitrators had been closely divided—and which was the reason that I had opposed closure until it was resolved—was adopting proposed finding of fact 9.1 instead of 9, and that change has now been made.

Thank you for your continuing and knowledgeable comments and questions concerning the arbitration process. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And thank-you for your answers! Carcharoth (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

One of my favorite pictures

Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 74 supporting, 3 opposing, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have placed in me. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Samiharris

Of course. I was looking to work out a solution that wouldn't require arbitration, but if it's expected that step can't be avoided, then I'm happy to defer. --Michael Snow (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

RFAR

As I stated on User:DGG's talkpage, there is something wrong with my e-mail and I cannot use it. I would, however, still like to proceed with the RFAR, or some other sort of dispute resolution process. Thank's for your concern. I'm 14 and I'm proud! (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm skeptical of anyone being able to edit WP but not able to start an email account somewhere. I'm letting you handle this, of course. that's what we elected you for. DGG (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked this user. Naturally you can converse with them on their talk page. In addition to the sock puppetry, I am extremely concerned about the username, and think it would be a good idea to protect or delete their talk page when this is done. Jehochman ^Talk 00:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Tidy up of fallout from ArbCom case

Newyorkbrad, there have been developments on the user sanctioned in the insta-closed ArbCom case. If you look at that user's talk page, you will find that a diff showing a link to RL information has been posted. A block has also been instituted, which I have questioned at the talk page of the blocking admin. I suggest that the post with the diff be oversighted so that the connection to the information be removed. I also wonder whether posting such a diff constitutes a violation of any policy. Best, EdChem (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've commented on that page. I don't see a need for oversight, but making connections back to the user's real name should be avoided. The user in question really shouldn't edit as "User:Vanished user", so the block that was imposed is probably valid as a username block, but I see no reason that he can't start making content contributions with a fresh account so long as he doesn't seek administrator or other privileges with it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the discussion in question and hopefully it will not be restored. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I have responded to your response at that talk page. I don't agree with your view on not oversighting the link, and very strongly believe that the post in question should be deleted. I would act to remove it, but failing a request to do so from the relevant user, feel it is not appropriate to do so. I also believe a warning to the user is warranted, but that also is not my call to make. If the block is to be mainted due to WP:U concerns, then I suggest a post to that effect. Perhaps something like: "This user name was adopted as part of a departure; it would not ordinarily be an acceptable user name, and so has been blocked from editing to maintain consistency with the spirit of that policy." Such a statement would explicitly show that the block is not about protecting the encyclopedia (as would be the usual rationale), nor about the edits - which, whilst questionable and unwise, are arguably permissable under policy - see here. It allows the block to stay without anyone being seen to have taken a parting shot, and it maintains the dignity of the departing user. I hope you will seriously consider my suggestion. Best, EdChem (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for having already acted to remove the discussion. EdChem (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict, partially moot, but here it is) I understand your position and will consider taking further pro-active action if User:Vanished user wishes to do so. I'd rather not issue a warning to the user who posted the offending link because it's well known he was in conflict with Vanished user and that would just draw additional attention to the connection which is the last thing either of us wants. I think the discussion that remains on Talk:Vanished user now makes clear that the block that remains is in the nature of a username block and is not a reflection on the editor concerned. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Newyorkbrad, it is, of course, your call. I understand the rationale about the warning, and agree that low profile is good - I may be letting my views here cloud my judgement. In the low profile approach, any suggestions about this collection of links? Can it be removed, or should I ask, or ...? As for the remaining discussion on the user's talk page, I think the comment from the blocking admin is ambiguous. It can be read as referring to WP:U, but it can also be read as 'you said you were going, so go' - which is how I read it the first time I saw it. Best, EdChem (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You can go ahead and ask the user whose page the links are on to remove or edit them. I'd rather not do anything unilateral there without at least asking first, and they are reasonably inconspicuous anyway. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've commented on this at the user talk pages here and here, including pointing out the similar name that I think was a precedent here - that is, a precedent in terms of being a rather odd name. Carcharoth (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism question

Hello. My brother uses this site, but I don't know what he does on it. I happened to see the message on his login about vandalizing. If he does it again, will I still be able to contribute my information? I don't vandalize. Will my whole IP address be blocked? Or, just my brother's account? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob barker rox my sox (talk • contribs)

Although we understand that new users sometimes make test edits, your brother's contributions under his current account have not been very impressive thus far. If he continues as he has, his account is likely to be blocked indefinitely, which could have the side-effect of blocking your IP as well (typically for 24 hours). Please do your best to persuade your brother against committing any further vandalism—and if you are an established good-faith user or would like to become one, please do your editing, including any further comments on this page, from your own account rather than your naughty brother's. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk

Threaded discussion on the WP:RFAR page? [2] Jehochman ^Talk 16:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a Clerk will clean up the mess and scold the offender. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am glad as ever to see that irony is not lost on the younger generation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget to abide by Wikipedia:No grouchy rants about young people these days or what it was like when you were young. :-) David Mestel^(Talk) 22:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Everyking appeal

I'd like some clarification on the Everyking appeal on the requests for arbitration page. I noticed a subsection called Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Statement by other user 2. Is this subsection intended for one user to make a statement, or for allowing statements for anyone who wishes to participate in the appeal? I don't participate at requests for arbitration much, which is why I'm asking. Thanks. Acalamari 17:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The format of the page was actually changed around today, so I'm not sure exactly what is intended by the heading, but the general rule is that any user can comment on any of the appeals or requests for clarification, so please feel free to do so. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the response: much appreciated. Acalamari 17:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

David Shankbone

Regarding your comments on User talk:David Shankbone. I see your point. I wouldn't mind seeing the block overturned but I'm concerned about two things. First, Shankbone seems to think it's perfectly justifiable for him to not only change the section heading another user created, but to do so repeatedly when reverted. In my view that's editing someone else's comments, and I think that's clearly how Yorkshirian viewed it. Whether you agree or not I'd appreciate if you could give Shankbone your opinion on that point. Second, what about Yorkshirian's block? GWH blocked them both over the same incident -- if one block goes should they both go? Mangojuice^talk 20:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I would unblock them both with the stricture that they remain off that talkpage for a couple of days, but that's just a personal view. (Also, this will sound ultra lame, but I find the typeface on Yorkshirian's talkpage unreadable, which is handicapping my ability to analyze his thoughts on the matter.). Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration procedure

I did not know that. Thanks. Bearian (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The procedure is complicated sometimes, unfortunately. It took me a couple of months of clerking to get the hang of some of it. But the basic rule is just to try to be fair to everyone and seek out a fair, well-informed, and expeditious ruling in each case. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Morven recusal from Mantanmoreland case

Based on his comments here [3] I requested Morven to recuse himself from the case [4] and he has refused. Rlevse tells me that the next step is to take it to another ArbCom member. Thus, I'm posting my request here. I believe Morven, based on his comments, has already and prejudicially determined the scope of the case and has a conflict of interest based on prior interaction with at least one of the named parties. Therefore, I'm formally requesting that he be recused. Cla68 (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:Arbitration policy provides no method of mandatory recusal. According to the page, you must either convince Morven to recuse himself or make a statement in the case arguing why you believe he has a conflict of interest. There is also no method outlined in Arbitration policy for the posing of a "formal request for recusal." Recusal is voluntary and based on the judgment of the Arbitrator in question. Avruch ^T 00:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

For better or worse, what little precedent there is suggests that even if another arbitrator were to move for one of his or her colleagues' disqualification, whether or not to recuse is within the discretion of each individual arbitrator (see, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Konstable/Proposed decision#Motion for Dmcdevit to recuse). In passing and also for whatever it is worth, this is the same way the matter is handled in some, though not all, real-world legal systems (compare the discussion in the mainspace article on recusal, most of which I wrote). Whether the policy should be changed is for discussion by the committee as a whole and can be raised, if desired, at the WP:RfAr talkpage. I'm sorry I can't be more helpful and I am not commenting on the merits of the recusal request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Asked here, about the precedent: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Proposed decision#Procedural question on recusal. Lawrence § t/e 00:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Brad, could the other arbitrators approve in the proposed decision a motion for formal sanctions on an arbitrator that they feel should have recused himself but didn't? Cla68 (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of any instance in which that issue has come up, one way or the other. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be pejorative here, but I asked a yes or no question. Is your answer, "I don't know?" Cla68 (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The answer is that to the best of my knowledge no one knows, because the situation's never happened. However, I've only been following cases for about 18 months, so someone who's been on Wikipedia for longer might be able to think of a time when this has occurred or been tried. (The committee has been critical of various of its members at different times, but not for failing to recuse.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism to your talk page

In case you didn't see this, I figured the Mantanmoreland RFAR vandalism may warrant a checkuser. (Speaking of which, why aren't you one? I thought all ArbCom members were automatically made checkusers?) —Wknight94 (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll mention the vandalism of the case page; we've had that sort of thing on a few other arbitration pages recently. All arbitrators are semi-automatically given oversight access, but not checkuser. I don't think I would make a good checkuser because I don't know very much about the technical aspects of IP assignments and related issues. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Davenbelle/Moby Dick

I was wondering if you would look into "#Real identity of Jack Merridew: Could it be Davenbelle/Moby Dick" as you clerked Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick (to a degree) and hence are more familiar with the case. -- Cat ^chi? 23:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to correct you. I only became active on Wikipedia in July 2006 and became an arbitration clerk in January 2007, so I didn't clerk the case you mentioned (which was in the summer of 2006) and I don't know much of anything about it. I think Tony Sidaway was the most active arbitration clerk during that time. Sorry. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I know about the Moby Dick case, and obviously about White Cat's suspicions, but I know nothing about this User:Jack Merridew and I haven't been following the Episodes and characters 2 arbitration. On the other hand, Davenbelle/Moby Dick was a very persistent troll and I wouldn't be surprised to hear that he's back. White Cat seems to be the kind of editor whose personality attracts a certain class of persistent nuisance. --Tony Sidaway 01:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That case was not closed when it was officially closed. Check the talk page, that case continued until early May 2007. Moby Dick was quite persistent. I saw your edit somewhere there :/ -- Cat ^chi? 02:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I had some activity on a subsequent motion, but it wasn't enough for me to recall a lot of information about this user. The best place for this to be addressed is in the current Episodes and characters 2 case. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad

I am currently the subject of a discussion thread on an external site, in which contributors are attempting to locate my real-world name and biographical information. I object as a matter of principle to this type of activity, which is calculated if not designed to deter editors who prefer to edit anonymously from continuing to contribute to Wikipedia, but obviously I am powerless to stop it.

I have thus far chosen to edit Wikipedia under a username without disclosing my real-world identity on-wiki, because I maintain a separation between my work on this project and my other activities. I came here originally to write articles and have, somewhat to my surprise, become more and more involved in the administrative and dispute-resolution aspects of the site. None of these activities have anything to do with my real-world employment or other activities, other than the occasional Wikipedia meet-up.

The related question has been raised whether the credentials I have claimed on-wiki (primarily my 20 years of experience as a litigation attorney in New York) are legitimate. Although I prefer to edit anonymously, my identity is known to members of the Board of Trustees (from when I was appointed as a member of the committee that supervised the Board elections) and the Arbitration Committee (from when I was appointed as a Clerk). I have also attended a number of meet-ups and have identified myself to several other Wikipedians in good standing who were kind enough to express interest. I have never used my legal qualifications in a dispute over article content (my article contributions are generally obscure enough that there are generally no disputes, though I sometimes fear that there also is generally no readership). However, if the concern being expressed on the external site is that I might be inventing a false identity to look more qualified to be an administrator or an arbitrator, then the alleged concern could certainly have been addressed by means short of posting enlargements of three photographs from meet-ups and an all-points-bulletin for identification of New York lawyers with the name Brad.

The perception has also been expressed on the external site that I have "amassed power" on Wikipedia (power? to do what? to spend my free time looking at diffs of evidence?) by focusing on "process" while rarely expressing opinions about controversial matters. It is quite true that my style has been to try to resolve disputes rather than to create them. Over the past year and a half, though, I think I've spoken out on various divisive and complex issues and expressed strong opinions as much as any other Wikipedian, though I'm not going to bother to enumerate examples here. For what it's worth, some of the time I have agreed with views expressed on the external site in question; and some of the time I've disagreed with them; and at other times it is hard to say because the contributors to that site are themselves divided on the issue, although they rarely stop to consider that this fact might suggest that the issues are more complex than they otherwise posit.

Now that I am on the Arbitration Committee, I will probably be wading into fewer disputes on the noticeboards—partly for the reason that Miltopia identified in a post a couple of months ago, i.e., to avoid a perception of partiality if the disputes later come to arbitration, and partly because sometimes anything an arbitrator says is perceived as some sort of official pronouncement even when it is not meant that way. (Miltopia's thoughts combined with the calls for various arbitrators to recuse in the pending Mantanmoreland case raise the question of how far, in the name of disinterestedness and the creation of recusal standards, we want to go toward creating a class of arbitrators who are somewhat cut off from the general administrator community—a concern that parallels the oft-expressed concern that we have a class of administrators somewhat cut off from the general editing community. But I digress.)

However, I'll certainly be taking sides and casting votes for the next three years as an arbitrator, so if my strategy had been to attain an arbitrator position by not taking sides on any controversial matter, which it was not, such a strategy would certainly have been a self-limiting and self-defeating one. I was enormously flattered and gratified by the level of support I received during the ArbCom election, but I was also aware that the day the election closed marked the maximum level of popularity I could ever enjoy here, because once I started voting on cases, I would begin upsetting and disappointing people. Which is exactly what is happening, albeit even sooner than I expected, and sometimes with editors whose friendship I have been very disappointed seemingly to lose.

As for the "outing" attempt, it is, I submit, counterproductive to the goals that many of the contributors to Wikipedia Review (okay, I got tired of typing "the external site") say they strive for. Threads on WR sometimes express concern that too much of Wikipedia is run by "a bunch of teenagers." Now I happen to think that many of the teenagers are doing exemplary jobs and I believe strongly in the principle of equal rights among contributors—but let's accept, as a working hypothesis, that older and more experienced people have a role to play in carrying out responsibilities such as dispute resolution. Let's even accept, purely as a working hypothesis and without prejudice, that there is a possibility that I am doing a halfway decent job. In that case, I cannot for the life of me understand why one would undertake an effort to unearth private information that I have chosen, obviously intentionally, not to reveal on-wiki and risk causing me or others similarly situated to want to leave.

While part of me is enraged at the attempt to identify me, another part of me is not surprised that this is happening and was expecting it to happen a good deal sooner. This is, however, an example of the sort of thing that I believe gives some of Wikipedia's critics a reputation for seeking purely to hurt our project rather than improve it. Unlike many other Wikipedians who ignore Wikipedia Review, for the past several months I have read substantially every word written on the publicly accessible portions of that site. Some of what is said there is right. Some of what is said there is wrong, or at best debatable, but it provides insight into what people think. As I said when I was asked the question during the election, the site is a mixed bag. But a thread like today's provides powerful ammunition for those who believe that Wikipedia Review is unworthy of respect or engagement because it is a place populated primarily by people who hate Wikipedia and hate Wikipedians.

In any event, whatever happens, I will do my best not to let this situation affect my work as an editor, an administrator, or an arbitrator.

Like anything else on Wikipedia, this post is GFDL licensed and may be copied to other sites, but as a courtesy I ask that anyone copying it do so only in its entirety. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I would also like to express my thanks to those who have posted supportively. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguity

Dear Mr. Brad;
Thank you for that considered response. I'd just like to clarify one point, something hinted at in your PS but that might bear being made explicit: That external site is a more-or-less unmoderated forum. The thread as it exists now is, for the most part, a discussion of one posters' desire to "out" you. At the time of this posting there is little actual attempt to do so. And discussion is currently trending towards consensus that this behavior being unacceptable.

This is not an attempt to sugar-coat any previous bile that might have issued from this particular well.
152.91.9.144 (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your post and clarification. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Response

As another member of that forum, I would like to express that there are a large number of people there who have stated that they view this with contempt - I would be one of those (though I am yet to post there on the matter). Consider me as one who regularly posted on that site who finds such a thing detestable, and quite hypocritical, for what that's worth. Achromatic (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Email

I have emailed you with regards to a current medcab case. Just incase you havnt recieved it i wanted to make sure it got to you. I am appalled to hear with regards to what you have written above. It is amazing how childish and immature people can be. Seddon69 (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't received your e-mail yet, but will keep an eye open for it (the interface between the Wikipedia interface and Gmail is a little slow sometimes). Thanks for your other comments. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Now responded. I hope the response is helpful. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Closure

• Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#Category:Rouge_admins

While I strongly oppose the idea that commenters in an XfD discussion may specifically choose who should close the discussion, as "forum shopping", it's not a great surprise to me that you were who most agreed upon. I would, of course, welcome your thoughts and/or comments on the closure, if you have any thoughts/concerns you wish to convey. - jc37 00:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I would probably have closed as "no consensus" because ... well, because there wasn't a consensus ... but the closing clearly reflected a careful analysis of the major arguments presented, and that is all to the good. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point

[5] - a good point well made. Guy (Help!) 15:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Some comments

Needless to say, I've been following the Wikipedia Review thread about me with continuing interest. Some of the comments made in that discussion are unworthy of further engagement or attention. But others are more thought-provoking, and since I don't feel comfortable opening a Wikipedia Review account, certainly not at the moment, I am going to respond here to some of the comments that has been made. This is not meant to set a precedent, for me or for any other Wikipedian, but there are some things that have been written that I am, for whatever reason, unable to ignore. No slight is intended to anyone I haven't responded to, particularly those whose remarks have been kindly and supportive.

My time for this exercise is limited, so I'm going to respond to one or two comments a day for as long as I feel like it. If anyone wants to pick up on any of these observations, anyone who is a Wikipedian in good standing is welcome to do so here, or anyone with a WR account can do so there (but please, preferably in a new thread and not in the "outing" thread).

Today I address The Joy. Yours are among the more thought-provoking comments in the entire discussion. In fact, you've always caught my attention. I remember that once last fall you said something nice about me, for which thanks. Then, a few weeks later, I posted a long set of comments to the talkpage of an exceptionally dedicated administrator who had made a long series of misjudgments, criticizing the misjudgments but urging that we give the admin a final chance before throwing him over the railing; and you linked to my remarks with the comment "I don't like Newyorkbrad any more." My thought at the time was "what a simplistic approach to evaluating people, based just on whether one agrees with the very last thing they said." But it did make me ask myself whether I was balancing in the right place between understanding that hardworking administrators will make some mistakes, on the one hand, and the fear of scaring off well-meaning contributors and especially newcomers, on the other. This is an ever-present concern.

I thank you for some of the kind words about me. For what it's worth, and as I said the other day, I don't accept that I "say everything in order to say nothing." There are plenty of times I've asserted a strong, sometimes controversial position. There are other times, of course, where I've seen strong arguments on both sides of a controversy. There is too much of a tendency on Wikipedia (and on Wikipedia Review, for that matter) to see issues in black-and-white terms without shades of gray. I try to avoid that fallacy. Arguments and resolutions are all the stronger when we grapple with one another's arguments rather than talk past them.

To pick up on a trope that's caught everyone's attention, I'm not intending to be Emperor Palpatine. Really I'm not: in the first place, I have no need or desire for "power" for its own sake, and in the second place, there is no power to be had here. (As I said in my statement the other day: Power? to do what? to stay up late reading diffs of evidence so I can draft a decision in some arbitration case, which half the participants in the case will hate me for writing? to spend half of my holiday yesterday dealing with Archtransit, helping to write a desysopping announcement for WR's readers to gloat over? "Power"? No.) So no, I won't be Palpatine. Who will I be? Well, after those photos you've seen of me, I don't suppose I can claim I'm Luke Skywalker or Obi-Wan Kenobi—nor, given all the bald jokes that have been made, Chewbacca. Tell you what, why don't you tell me a year or two from now who I turned out to be. Hopefully it won't be Jar-Jar Binks.

You posit that I'm "a little naive and think that WP is something of a utopia." Sorry, but not true. It's self-evident that I think more highly of Wikipedia than most of the contributors to Wikipedia Review—but I know full well that this is a flawed human enterprise. Some of the problems and issues: we continue to experience what I perceive as an extremely high and damaging rate of turnover and burnout among our experienced editors and our leaders—a situation common in most online communities, but one that is particularly harmful in a project like Wikipedia, where institutional knowledge is a valuable commodity and where so much work remains to be done. We continue to struggle with the balance between providing encyclopedic coverage and respecting the privacy of living people who have attained notoriety for a single misjudgment in their lives or incidents where they have been victimized by others, an ethical minefield for the project and one long of concern to me (see, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow#Outside view by Newyorkbrad or my comments on the Amir or the Hornbeck/Ownby deletions), though the situation has I believe been improving since Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff (and it would be interesting to see a discussion on WR between participants like Daniel Brandt on the one hand, and those like Jeff, who left Wikipedia in disgust because we deleted articles like Brian Peppers and Daniel Brandt, on the other; and if the outcome is that this is a complex area full of judgment calls, perhaps there could be a little bit less of the air of absolute certainly on both sides of the discussion).

More: Despite our fundamental values of welcoming newcomers and interacting civilly and extending good faith to one another, which are much of what drew me here, we have a horrendous habit of blowing minor disagreements entirely out of proportion—creating disputes that last for weeks, tying up monumental amounts of administrator and contributor time and breeding badly bruised feelings, and often over matters whose importance, in a rational world, could be described only as slight. The complexities of some of our processes are excessive and drive potential participants away. Issues shunted from one forum to another sometimes fall between the cracks and are not resolved at all. From time to time, we learn of ongoing administrator excesses or abuses (I think these are less common than many people claim, but ideally they should be fewer still, and indeed altogether absent), and misuses of the #admins IRC channel (ditto). Though I consider our founder a man of broad foresight and vision and I respect his role here, from time to time a few of his interventions have been divisive or unwise. The Foundation, though led by men and women of enormous talent and dedication and good will and good faith, still is addressing the governance issues common to most non-profits in their early years.

Despite our protestations, we still bite some newcomers. Some of our subject areas are embroiled in ongoing ethnic and political and other infighting which, as principle 1 in too many arbitration cases has to recite, is extremely disruptive. We struggle with the balance between excess nonfree content on the one hand and sometimes excessively technical nonfree-content-policy enforcement on the other hand and excessive backlash against the volunteers who do the thankless job of policy enforcement on the third hand. We need more administrators and mediators with people skills who can sense a problem developing and step in and help to resolve it before it festers. While many of our articles are excellent, others, to say the least, aren't (Kelly Martin had done some random sampling on her blog last year whose results were disappointing). The RfA process, though better than any alternative we have devised, produces erratic and at times disappointing results. The arbitration process often still takes too long (though we are doing better).

On and on I could go. Utopia? No.

But I am also convinced that we are doing something very valuable here—maybe this is the utopian part—in creating this free encyclopedia. And there are, with no pun on your WR username, joys to be had here. When I sit down and write a page of the encyclopedia, even a fairly skimpy and basic one, instead of doing anything else I could be doing with that hour or two of my life, I am doing it because I derive a pride and enjoyment from knowing that when someone types that subject into Google someday, there will be information available only because I, and whatever other editors may come along and collaborate with me, have put it there. Maybe when I write an arbitration decision, I can take some pride because I have taken what could have been a long-running and bitterly divisive dispute and found a way to resolve it in a fair, well-informed, and expeditious fashion that should typify all Wikipedia (and for that matter real-world) dispute resolution procedures. There are other unexpected pleasures to be had, such as watching some of our editors, including some whose promise I spotted early, grow as writers and as leaders.

I think it was Jimbo who once said that a key purpose of the project was for the contributors to have fun. Some of my tasks as an administrator and now an arbitrator are burdens, but on balance, I'm having fun. A lot of us are having fun. We wouldn't have hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of participants if we weren't. Despite all the flaws, we must be doing something right.

No, I haven't fixed everything. I'm doing my best and I always will. No one can fix everything. We have a template called "{{sofixit}}". Our critics, so long as they can comport themselves within the broad outer limits of our policies, should come here, if they aren't here already, and fix things. Come help fix, or better yet add and contribute rather than "fix," because most things aren't broken. And if you are already here, keep up the good work. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

if I may be so bold

"20 years of experience as a litigation attorney in New York"

What are your feelings on expanding on that? Can you verify that Wikimedia Foundation has evidence of that? Can you verify that the phrase is something a reasonable third party might use to describe yourself as opposed to a phrase that is "stretching it"? I would be happy to be told that you confirm that the Foundation has evidence that the phrase is not misleading. It would be OK, though, if you declined to answer; although in that case I would conclude that the phrase might be misleading in some way, even if actually not strictly untrue. WAS 4.250 (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've identified myself informally to the Arbitration Committee (when I was made a clerk) and the Board (when I volunteered for the elections committee last year). That doesn't mean that who Newyorkbrad is would be at the tips of their tongues, but the information can be found in their in-boxes or whatever, or I could do it again. I identified myself officially to Cary Bass in the Office after I was appointed to the Arbitration Committee, in connection with receiving Oversight access. The identification was with my driver's license, not my law school diploma, but typing my name into Google immediately turns up my law firm bio, links to cases I've litigated and citations to articles I've written, and the like. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That's good enough for me. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to get Mike Godwin to say "User:Newyorkbrad has had 20 years of experience as a litigation attorney in New York." That would be so great. WAS 4.250 (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Mike surely has better things to do, but if someone wants to ask him to do that I have no objection. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Not needed. The above is good enough for me. Thanks. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I use the nick "Doc", and I've asserted I have a PhD. However, I have never, and will never offer to verify it. Caveat emptor applies to all on-line assertions.--Doc^g 11:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

PS, before anyone clicks on the link. That article is US-centric bollocks. Which assuming Brad is a lawyer, he'll instantly recognise. Caveat lector (which has nothing to do with the threat of Anthony Hopkins) ;) --Doc^g 11:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I also know Brad's real name and can confirm the truth of the above statement, if my credibility means anything to you. However, I find this thread to be of questionable taste and ethically lacking. Even if Brad had asserted himself in an edit war somewhere by saying "I am a lawyer and I know better than you" there would be no cause to pursue this line of questioning unless we pursue everyone else who ever claimed expertise in anything. Since Brad has never done this to the best of my knowledge, nor did he run for Arbcom on the basis of being able to provide free legal advice to the Foundation, there seems to be all bark and no bite here. Thatcher 17:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This thread risks straying into the realm of encouraging whoever is trying to intimidate Brad off-site. I suggest we all drop it. Brad has an email account and can answer such reasonable personal queries as he sees fit. Beyond that, Wikipedia editing per se has no requirement of disclosure of identity, and apparently the Foundation has verified his identity to the extent that it needs to do so in order to fulfil its duties. --Tony 17:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Brad has much more tact than I do. My summary response? "None of your damn business." Bellwether ^B_C 17:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well... Contexualise this as following on from the fairly recent high-profile "I'm not who I said I was even though Jimbo knew" saga. In some cases, it would be arguable that questions like this do need to get asked. Mr. Brad has made it clear he's a lawyer, and it's been (very lightly) promoted as a positive quality that should encourage people to trust him. My opinion is that there's nothing to it, but there's little harm in discussing under what circumstances we (collectively) would want to pry more. When it would, to echo Bellwether's colourful phrasing, become "our damn business."
152.91.9.144 (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Your summary response merits validity only when someone isn't using their credentials to back up any argument (note that this is a theory, not a specific remarked aimed at NYB). Remember, "we" apparently don't like people trying to claim authority. How this gels with anonymity or pseudonymity is another matter altogether. Achromatic (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Brad, a rouge vandal tried once to get my personal information. As you know, all a person needs to "certify" a copy under NY CPLR is to forge a lawyer's signature and add his/her attorney registration number. I've got your back. Bearian, a/k/a Bearian'sBooties (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Editrequest

Please take a look at Image:Editrequest-footer.PNG. I am not absolutely certain that my request is correct, but I believe it to be; if I knew the MediaWiki page that corresponds to the footer, I'd put an {{editprotected}} there, but since I don't, you get to suffer—or, at least, you get to point me towards whoever I get to make suffer next.  ;) Jouster  (whisper) 21:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to let you down Jouster, but that text is inserted via LocalSettings.php, which is a core MediaWiki file, rather than a system message, and can only be changed by the developers (try bugzilla:Home?) BTW, apologies for the intrusion, Brad. AGK (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The intrusion is appreciated. I would have thought that the setting could be fixed by a Meta administrator (which I am not), but I gather it's even more rarified than that. Regards to both of you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding probation thread on ANI

Sorry about that--I put them on ANI more out of habit instead of the AE page. Should we list warnings on the AE page also, under the probation? I left one for the likely BFP sock IP and noted it here. Was that OK? Lawrence § t/e 21:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Warnings from administrators can be listed on the bottom of the case page of the closed arbitration, along with blocks, bans, or restrictions, so that the admins on arbitration enforcement can keep track. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to say thanks for being willing to put your thoughts and proposals out there on the Arbitration workshop pages for comment. Even though it's time-consuming and undoubtedly there's a lot of noise along with the signal, I think it's a really valuable approach. I see FT2 has been pretty active in this direction as well, which is nice to see. One of the biggest frustrations I've had with the Arbitration process is its opacity - when a case takes what seems to be an inexplicable turn and there's no visible indication of the thinking behind it. The Workshop pages have often felt more like an empty echo chamber than anything else in the past. Anyway, I just wanted to say thanks for your commitment to engaging the Community there, which you're not obligated to do but which is greatly appreciated. MastCell ^Talk 21:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats

You made it onto Brandt's hivemind page.--85.17.116.166 (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if congratulations are in order for this achievement, but thank you for letting me know (I'd actually seen it already, but thanks anyhow). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence

Noticed you were online. In case you hadn't seen the page history, I think an Arbitrator needs to lay down the law on this page given the amount of edit warring going on. The question at the root of it is: "May people edit other people's evidence in order to remove BLP violations (or links to BLP violations on external sites) or should this be left to Arbitrators/clerks?" Thanks, WjBscribe 20:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

A Clerk asked me how to handle this situation a little while ago, and I have forwarded his request along to the committee in order to get some consensus. Thanks for the heads up. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

New mailing list

There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it! Cbrown1023 talk 21:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for the note. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Your urgent comment on the MM case

As a side comment - This case has been making large portions of the community grumpy and polarized. I think that having a chance to argue out how we feel about it has been useful. The end result, after much debate, is much closer to consensus than we started with. This secondary community angle of the Arbcom case is somewhat important when the community gets itself wrapped up around a problem.

That said, I don't disagree with your point. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The community has provided a great deal of valuable input. Now it's time for the arbitrators to decide the case. It is taking a high percentage of our collective time right now (with apologies to parties to all the other cases who are waiting their turn), and I hope there will be a proposed decision posted soon after the weekend. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Point-by-point voting

I think your suggestion of a point-by-point vote on the issues where the two motions conflict would be a fair resolution. Everyking (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Voting on the EveryKing 3 Appeal

Thanks for your note. It took me a while to track everything down, as by the time I got to look at it, Thatcher had already "archived" the proceedings. I don't have anything specific to add, really. Perhaps I didn't make my suggestion to David Mestel explicit enough, but I do think that so long as discretionary judgment of clerks is in the picture, their thinking should be part of the official record. Thatcher wound up explaining himself anyway, but it might have been easier had he made all of it clear to start with. rudra (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The Clerks aren't really meant to be making discretionary decisions about what passes or not. I do not in any way say that to belittle the Clerks' role, which I performed for almost a year myself and enjoyed, but I can say from experience that it is uncomfortable for the Clerks to have to speculate as to the arbitrators' collective intent rather than implement it. It would be easy enough to say that clarification from the arbs should be sought out in those cases, but (again I say from experience) the arbitrators are busy and often as not have moved on by then to the next big thing. I will do my best to ensure that these potential ambiguities, from now on, are picked up and addressed sooner rather than later. Incidentally, I noted that you and I both independently saw that Arrow's theorem might have something to say about this situation, although technically I think Arrow's result only kicks in when there are three or more alternatives under consideration rather than two. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, Arrow's theorem requires at least 3 alternatives (which makes it not only a generalization of Condorcet's voting paradox, but also an argument for two-party systems!:-)). The concern with the two-alternative case is the order of "tie-breakers" (which is what the discussion with David was mostly about.) What David wrote up in his essay is not unreasonable, but all said and done, it's still a gray area, which means that we're really tempting Murphy's Law to strike... rudra (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

SWATjesters AN thread

Hi Newyorkbrad, can you weigh in here when you have a moment? Avruch ^T 21:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Avruch ^T 05:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Delegable proxy

Hi Newyorkbrad/Archive/2008, I just wanted to inform you that I have taken the Wikipedia delegable proxy experiment live. This is a proposal to let users appoint a trusted individual to represent them in debates that they themselves (whether due to time limitations or whatever reason) are not able to personally participate. This system is ideal for your purposes, since given your Arbcom duties, you have limited time to devote to the other aspects of Wikipedia, but many trusted colleagues here. I encourage you to nominate a proxy. The proxy designation instructions are at Wikipedia:Delegable proxy/Table. For instance, if you wish to nominate me as a proxy, you can just go to, create a new page, and then enter:

I've also come up with this cool advertising banner: Show your support for delegable proxy! Add this userbox to your userpage using User:Sarsaparilla/Delegable proxy (Ordinarily I might view this type of message as a potentially questionable type of canvassing, but I feel entitled to contact you about my ideas and concerns since I am your constituent and you my elected official.) Thanks, Absidy (talk) 07:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but, for reasons that others have already expressed on the project-space talkpage, I think this is a poor idea. I would oppose implementation and certainly would not participate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Your edit on my Secret History of Gary - Thanks

Brad - I understand and am fine with your edit. Judd called to explain more about the etiquette here. In fact, now that I more fully understand how much of the heartburn here has been created by my mentioning some facts about SlimVirgin in a DeepCapture page linked to directly from this site, I have removed from that page the information about SV. I also want to thank those people who (Judd has pointed out to me) have fought pretty hard to right a wrong by preventing my other link from being excised. Respect, PatrickByrne (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Absidy

Given you weren't involved the first time around with this, check my deleted contribs for the last SSP I filed. I think there is at least one more registered and one more IP hiding out there, and I'm sure I could find more if I actually had bothered to walk it back further in time. MBisanz ^talk 03:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but it would probably be most useful for someone with checkuser to look at this. You might try Alison, who ran the check today. Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Technical question

Hello. I had a quick question about a request for clarification I filed here (I haven't filed one of these before so I'm unsure of the protocol). Does it require input from a majority of the active Arbs - that is, should I be patient? Or are these things typically handled by one or two Arbs commenting informally (as you and FT2 have)? Sorry to bug you - just curious about how these things work and what the next step is. Thanks. MastCell ^Talk 17:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's kind of ad hoc and there's never been a clear procedure. Generally, if it's just a question and a couple of arbitrators comment, and a few days elapse and the other arbs don't have anything to add, then that becomes the de facto guidance that is given (although obviously it doesn't have the same force as a formal committee decision). However, where needed, any arbitrator can offer a formal motion for consideration, and in that case the motion would require a majority of votes to be adopted. Hope this helps at least a little. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

In a similar vein - have you considered offering a motion for vote in the Everyking reconsideration? Avruch ^T 21:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm considering it, yes. I am trying to ascertain whether there would be significant support within the committee for overturning the remaining sanctions if voted on individually. It wouldn't be doing either the committee or Everyking any favors if I were to move to overturn a particular sanction and the result was an 11-1 or 10-2 vote to retain it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the point you make, but would be really disappointed if there were majority support for the punitive-appearing appeal restriction. Jay*Jay (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The appeal under discussion was the fifth appeal filed by Everyking in the last 13 months. Thatcher 02:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, there was an appeal that resulted in sanctions being reduced in November, an appeal in January where the response was 'wait until February so the new ArbCom members are in place', and this February appeal which resulted in sanctions being lifted. So, the last three appeals seem to have two reductions in restrictions, and one "come back in a month" - which he did. The appeal restriction might be justified in the appeals were vexatious. However, we are talking about a situation where the majority of ArbCom members favoured ending sanctions altogether. I remain of the position that I would be really disappointed if, as a stand-alone motion, there were majority support for this punitive-appearing appeal restriction. Jay*Jay (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I should have said fifth appeal or request for clarification in 13 months, although I suppose the fifth could be considered a continuation of the fourth, per your comment; see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3 and judge for yourself whether Everyking has been excessively vexatious over the past year. The intent of the second motion is clearly to leave the harassment parole in place for at least one more year, hence the strong statement barring further appeals on that issue. Thatcher 14:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, Thatcher. Interesting reading. I suggest that the 'intent' to which you refer belongs not to the motion but rather to its drafter, jpgordon. It is far from clear that ArbCom intended to continue the parole for another year - indeed, a majority voted for it to be lifted! However, the link you provided did demonstrate for me that it is jpgordon's view. It also makes me wonder about the drafting of motion 2. Since jpgordon clearly knew that some sanctions ended in November, including formal terminations makes the motion appear much more accomodating than it actually is - especially given the new restriction, which I strongly suspect was intended to be punitive. Newyorkbrad's passed-but-discounted formulation was a reasonable attempt to address Everyking's actual concern - not having to edit with an ArbCom-endorsed "second class citizen" sign around his neck, and to instead be seen as an editor in good standing. The recorded motion not only continues the parole, but adds a new ball-and-chain to slow down progress towards having the sign removed. As for 'vexatious': I think Everyking was unwise to make the Jan 2007 appeal - and I think jpgordon is still annoyed about past behaviour to want Everyking to have to wear the sign. Jay*Jay (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I recall making an appeal in January 2007, an appeal in May 2007 (both of them unsuccessful), and an appeal in January 2008, which was deferred to February. So that's three appeal in 13 months. I also made a request for clarification in November 2007 asking what date my restriction were supposed to end, but that wasn't an appeal; I wasn't asking for anything to be changed. Everyking (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

<--You're entitled to make whatever assumptions you want but perhaps you should ask Jpgordon what his intent really was. Given the timing of the two motions and the voting patterns, and the fact that 2 Arbitrators voted only on #2, my take is that Jpgordon and UninvitedCompany wanted to send a message that the harassment parole was to stay in effect for at least a year and that they didn't want to be bothered again in the mean time, that Charles and Bainer agreed, that Brad objected, and that Kirill, Flo and the others did not care strongly enough one way or the other to make their vote binding on the more generous motion. In terms of consensus, we certainly would judge 4 strong supports, one strong oppose, and 6 "either way is fine" as consensus support for the question at AfD or RFA. If a new motion was offered, "All restrictions on EK are lifted" I see 3-4 votes against; do you see 8 votes in favor? (8 being a majority with 15 active Arbitrators.) I suspect there is private discussion on Arbcom-L and the motion will not be offered unless there are at least 8 in favor. I see Brad's point that offering such a motion knowing it would fail would be a slap in the face to EK but I am frankly getting tired of the notion that I somehow hijacked the result--although there are around two comments that it would have been better to divide the question, not one Arbitrator has expressed publicly or privately that I got it wrong given the motions and votes as written. Thatcher 15:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are correct on what is currently going on on the ArbCom list. I also think there *should* be 8 votes in favour because there are already 8 votes in favour of motion 1. If no such motion is offered, then those 8 members are likely to be asked to explain their change in position. As for 'hijacking' the result, I have zero interest in whether your interpretation of what may have been meant was correct. What was done was to pass two motions. It is not your place to decide they didn't mean to pass two motions, or to decide they should have been offered as alternatives. It is up to ArbCom to make sure that it passes what it means to pass. They stuffed up, they created ambiguity and uncertainty, and they now have to fix it. In cases, a majority vote is sufficient. There was majority support for motion 1. There is nothing that you or anyone else can say that alters this fact. If ArbCom did not intend that motion 1 pass, then they should reopen the case and get a majority to rescind the motion. Jay*Jay (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• The motions were alternates. The motions were known by all members of ArbCom, and anyone even vaguely familiar with ArbCom's processes and procedures, to be alternates. We often have alternates on proposed decision pages. When alternates are presented, the one with the most support carries. This was the same. There is and never was any ambiguity; there is no reasonable interpretation in which the two motions were not alternates. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok - I don't dispute that the members understood them to be alternates, and I agree that based on the explanation Thatcher correctly interpreted the intent of the Committee through these motions. My point in filing the request remains, though, that to outward appearances the motions both look to have passed and are contradictory. An amendment or further clarifying motion of the Committee to make it obvious that only motion 2 passed (and why) would be useful.

Additionally, the bar to further appeals seems unnecessary - in the context of this appeal, at least, it was acknowledged by members that the Committee intended to take the matter up again itself. It didn't in the timeframe indicated, so Everyking brought it up and it was dealt with as indicated. If the clear intent is to extend the remedies for the term of a year, then you could just as easily respond with the limitation if EK files an appeal without merit in the interim. A restraint in advance of the event seems wrong. Avruch ^T 23:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that jpgordon decided to post here but not to deny that the intent of the appeal restriction was punitive, nor that Everyking is being forced to retain an ArbCom endorsed "second class citizen" sign around his neck. I also particularly enjoyed the superior and patronising tone that clearly indicates that those raising concerns at WP:AN and in the current request are simply ignorant and not even "vaguely familiar with ArbCom processesolicies and procedures". Finally, it's a wonderful endorsement of the irrelevance of community views that some ArbCom members see no need to politely engage with legitimate concerns about ambiguity; instead we are dismissed as unreasonable. ArbCom members really need to reflect on their actions and behaviour - because there are plenty of people in the community whose respect for ArbCom is fast disappearing. Jay*Jay (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand‎

'Tis not your gaudy Arbitrator's robes that are needed here, but your common sense and ability to "smooth the waters."

Discussion is not progressing well. I feel echos of <userboxwarz/pedophilia scarez/schoolzwarz> here. The same few people contribute the majority of the discussion, and a smaller subset of these few are volotile and, err, "plainly spoken." Moderate voices from either side are drowned out by the shrill chorus. I've suggested that asking people to politely yeild the floor is something that we should be able to do in cases like this. LaraLove has declined to do so, Carcharoth‎ has nodded his head and agreed in principle, MickMacNee‎ hasn't responded.

I've seen the same thing in arbitration, as well. We're not very good, collectivly, at removing the volume component from rational debate. I'm edging up on talking too much at WP:ANI/BC already, and contributing to the problem... so I'm hoping for some pearls of wisdom: What's the best way forward?

152.91.9.144 (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Two words: dispute resolution. In particular, the conduct RfC format is specifically designed for the kind of problem we're seeing alleged here, and it also does a neat job of dealing with repetitiveness. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 06:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Who's your new friend, Brad? 86.143.138.74 (talk) 08:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, I apologise for creating a thread on your talk that is potentially disruptive. With regards to {AoaNLA,t}'s suggestion above, would you consider a request for comment a useful excercise at this time? With regards to the larger question of what to do when people (*cough* like me *cough*) won't quit banging on, do you agree that it's a common attribute of the disputes that the community fails to solve? - 152.91.9.144 (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Michael_Lucas_.28porn_star.29

Hi Brad - I feel like this question can use your insight. If you read my last comment on this thread, you will see the issue laid out. We have some sources saying that Michael Lucas' birth name was "Andrei Treivas Bregman" and you have some sources saying "Andrei Treivas". An IP editor known to many of us has been demanding we use the source that says Bregman. Michael Lucas himself has tried to correct the article, going as far as to edit the article and leave messages on the Talk page (all polite), and getting in touch with editors, including myself. Since I am in New York, I met with Lucas an photographed some of his expired personal documents, including his Soviet birth certificate, his expired Soviet passport and his expired US passport. "No good!" many contributors have said. Lucas was recently sued over one of his films, and according to Lucas the lawsuit was brought against "Andrei Treivas Bregman" because the plaintiff's used his Wikipedia information for the court filings (apparently it is a matter of court record now that 'Bregman' was never his name). How does WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:Ignore fit together in a situation like this? Each of this, including WP:Ignore, are all policy. The issue simply is not dying. --David Shankbone 15:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a new one for me. Are there any reliable sources indicating that "Bregman" was his name or other reasonable rationales being given for using it? If not, that should be an end of the matter. If there are some sources saying "Bregman" but the weight of evidence is against it, then the article could at most contain a brief reference that he is sometimes referred to by that name but it is incorrect. Those are my preliminary thoughts, at any rate. My wiki time this week has been tied up with reviewing and drafting in a complicated arb case but I will try to take a closer look when I get a chance. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Concern for Abd

Abd (talk · contribs) seems to be heading down the wrong path. [6][7] Apparently they are upset that Wikipedia will not be used as a platform for popularizing their delegable proxy idea (see also Wikipedia:Delegable proxy), and have decided to use disruption as a strategy for gaining attention. I think this should be nipped in the bud. What do you think? Jehochman ^Talk 22:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I just checked his talkpage, and he appears to be a bit calmer now. Will watch and await developments. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Missing edit

Hi Brad -- per my question here, I am wondering if you can clarify whether WB made the listed edit at 21:49 on July 7, 2006, and if so, whether he repeated the specific claim. I have tried to clarify the point, but the edit appears to have been oversighted. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that another arbitrator has already commented on the workshop talkpage that there don't seem to have been any oversighted edits there. I'm not much of an expert on the Oversight tool, myself, I'm afraid. FYI, a proposed decision should be posted soon. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I was curious specifically about the article rather than WB's talk page, however, since this is the issue that was raised. You may have seen I just asked UC to clarify that point. If either could do so I would appreciate it. Mackan79 (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

MM Proposed Decision talk page

When you get a chance today/tomorrow, take a peek at this section? A couple of concerns are raised there, and I'm curious for your specific response there on my take, if I'm off-base. Thanks! Lawrence § t/e 06:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

They're fair questions; I'll respond in the morning, unless another arb gets there first. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I seem to have responded tonight after all. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that; sorry for hammering it a bit. I figured it would be best to just get it out as concisely as possible before the page was 1,000kb in size. You guys usually have an impossibly shitty job, and have my thanks. Lawrence § t/e 06:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I ran for the job, and having clerked for the committee for a year, I knew exactly what I was getting into. I also knew, as I mentioned on this page last week, that voting on the various cases would start to get people upset with me. I didn't, though, realize that it would happen this strongly or this soon. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what to make of the MM case, but FWIW I still think you're awesome, Brad :) Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 07:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hi! PLEASE don't take any of my comments on the MM prop decision personally. Yes, I am quite frustrated and disappointed in the first bit of propdecision. Yes, I think there's some potential for drama to grow not shrink if it stays the way it is. Please take my comments as an attempt to hightlight maybe some of the items that need to be addressed with findings/rememdies. I think what you've done hits the content dispute going forward portion of this very well. The community has been abused in this and that part is not dealt with at all. My real feeling? ban-em, publicly state the admins who protected MM, and hounded wb/piperdown/cla68 were wrong, and the looking ahead proposals made. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 07:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

I award this barnstar to Newyorkbrad, for being the best all around user I've seen since Essjay. Prodego ^talk 03:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, although I am certain that your wording is going to be quoted wayyyyy out of context—or is it in context?—on one or more external sites. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

In context, but misinterpreted I would say. Prodego ^talk 21:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm impressed

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I am deeply impressed with your rational thought as well as the long range solutions you have proposed at RFAr Mantanmoreland...I hope others will heed these points and abide by them in full, and we can all get back to writing an encyclopedia. Great job!MONGO 06:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

...on the other hand, there isn't a barnstar for "I'm deeply disappointed" so I don't have one for you at this time. I'm hoping I don't stay disappointed, but what I've seen so far seems far too timid and way too narrow. There were pretty broad allegations made. Among the most important was that this sockpuppetry was an open secret among many high level community members, with nothing done about it, for years. I would really like to see those wider issues addressed. Put a finding in about that. Construing this narrowly sets the community up for more difficulty and drama later. You were not elected with the mandate you have to take the easy way out, Brad. Even if the other arbitrators perhaps want things a bit easier, (I have no idea what is going on there)... get in there, make your voice heard, and make this come out more forcefully, more clearly. I know you can. This isn't about you alone, it's about the entire ArbCom, but your voice carries weight and your many supporters are looking for you to do the right thing. Please don't let all of them, all of us, down. ++Lar: t/c 18:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That entire allegation that MM was known to be using sock accounts by many (or any) high level community members is a ridiculous conspiracy theory. In fact, if anything, if he has abused sock accounts, it's probably about as angering to those who trusted him as many of us were when essjay was exposed.--MONGO 19:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's get it on the table, see what evidence exists and put it to rest then. Narrowly construing this case does no one any good, things that fester tend to get smellier. ++Lar: t/c 19:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly how do you think these supporting editors are to be identified? Is the fact that some of them did some admin actions based on good faith supposed to be instead used as evidence of some coverup?--MONGO 19:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a problem for those making the allegation to address, not me. See, for example, Cla68's evidence which lays out patterns of behaviour. Sometimes patterns are coincidences, and sometimes they are not. ArbCom should evaluate this evidence and comment. In fact it should have been commenting all along. Hence my disappointment. But, with all due respect, my comment was addressed to NYB, not you, as he's on ArbCom and could effect some change. Your position, that you wanted this construed as narrowly as possible, without even the examination and repudiation of these important allegations, is already known to me. I don't agree with it, I think it's wrong, I think it will fester until it is dealt with. If there is nothing to these allegations, let ArbCom stand up and say so. ++Lar: t/c 19:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit gobsmacked to see the community making such a meal out of this affair. You'd think this was the first time credible, but not absolutely cast-iron, evidence of socking had ever been encountered. One proposed remedy, requiring editors to disclose interests and avoid using proxies, seems quite sensible and avoids the silliness that might arise from more user-specific remedies. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Tony, in my view the socking is run of the mill, now that the correlative material has been assembled. Completely open and shut, really. The bigger questions are those raised in, for example, Cla68's evidence, not the socking itself. (Have you read it?) That's why the community, or at least some portion of it, is concerned, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 20:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

At first sight, the evidence section you refer to resembles the work of some kind of conspiracy theorist. If the community is up in arms, then it must be an exceedingly small insurrection. I only spotted your comments here by accident. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This dialog is of interest, but might better proceed on the proposed decision talkpage where others could read and participate. Regards to each of you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to refactor whatever you like there with my blessing, but my initial comment was directed to you personally. I've said plenty on the proposed decision talk page already and I would not be surprised if I said more, but a personal appeal to you doesn't really seem like it belongs there. That others choose to respond to it here is their perogative I guess but it does not change that my remark, like MONGO's barnstar, was directed at you personally. ++Lar: t/c 22:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That's fine and everything can stay right where it is. I was just reminding others commenting here that the other page is where more arbitrators are likely to read. Of course, plenty of people are writing in both places. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)