User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2010/Oct

Response

Hello, Newyorkbrad. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Stevertigo.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Requesting your (non-legal or official) comment

Since you are on Wikipedia's "Supreme Court", and also a lawyer, could you have a look at Talk:High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection? I considered filing an arbitration request because WP:DR doesn't really provide any other venues for copyright-related disputes, but I don't have the time to involve myself in such complex, court-like proceedings here. (I would rather improve some article in that time.) Thanks, Tijfo098 (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm not in a position to express any "official" view unless and until some dispute comes before the Arbitration Committee (in which case any views here are tentative and I have not prejudged the matter). And I haven't done any legal research at all into the legal implications of publishing the code in question as a matter of the copyright statute (my recollection is that the discussion of the legal aspect of the issue the last time a similar situation arose was inconclusive). For what it is worth, however, my own personal view is that disseminating a specific copyright-security code has little if any encyclopedic value but could contribute substantially to the destruction of intellectual property rights. Therefore, my view is that we should not do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict, sort of) See WP:KEYSPAM. We've been through all this before. 67.119.2.101 (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was referencing with "the last time a similar situation arose." I hope that we will handle this situation in a less anarchic manner than last time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This seems a little different than KEYSPAM because it involves publishing a link to the original place where the key was published, not posting the key on Wikipedia, which is impractical due to the size of this key anyway. It seems that nobody took legal action to have the key removed from where it was published in the first place (pastebin), which allowed articles in CNET [1] and PC Magazine [2] to link to it. (I assume they were aware of DMCA, AACS, and what not, and ran a question past their lawyers before publishing the link.) Anyway, thanks for your input. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, AACS encryption key controversy actually gives the full key. Someone must not be up to speed re KEYSPAM. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Brad, I just now became aware of this thread. Thanks for your input - my thinking was generally along the same lines, i.e. low encyclopedic value, high probability for damage to copyright holder. If there are any experts in WP copyright policy would certainly appreciate a pointer so we can include their input as well. Ronnotel (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Martintg. Offliner (talk) 07:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Email

I sent you an email. Please let me know if you will, or when you reply. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Noting that this appears to have been resolved at the time, well before I had a chance to look at it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Admin Involvement

Regarding [3] I wish to make you aware that Lar came in as an enforcement admin on Climate Change within weeks of having two separate disagreements with WMC which were both completely, verifiably non-admin interactions. Around the time he came in to the CC area he also commented externally to wikipedia what his general intentions were on the wikipedia review alsongside several of WMCs main critics (such as Abd). Lar has since consistantly supported the toughest sanctions against WMC of all "uninvolved" admins and also and more importantly tried to portray the situation as WMC's 'faction' trying to control the articles. The evidence is all there in spades and has generally been ignored by arbcom. Olap the Ogre (talk) 09:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom

1. Having a case before Arbcom requires interaction with Arbs and their clerks. Where is the appropriate, centralized and open place for case discussion with Arbs? (I note that Steve Quinn corresponds with you via email.)
2. Does Arbcom have (either currently or in its history of discussion about its own processes) any conception of appointing 'legal' help for participants, particularly defendants, in its cases? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 06:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my delay in responding. I have a terrible cold this week, and it is slowing me down.

The best place to post to the arbitrators is on the case pages, including if appropriate on the talkpages. This makes sure that whatever you say will be seen by all the arbitrators, not just by me as might happen if you post (for example) here. Also, please note that I am not one of the two arbitrators who has taken the lead drafting role in this case.

E-mail to the arbitrators' mailing list should be used where there is confidential information that needs to be discussed, but not just for general comments about the case.

Steve Quinn's e-mail concerned a minor aspect that I believe wound up being resolved quickly before I even had a chance to see it, so please don't believe he has any unfair advantage in the case or anything like that.

Long ago, well before I was an arbitrator or even an editor, there was a group of editors called the Association of Members' Advocates who were supposed to provide what you call "legal help" to parties to ArbCom cases. I believe the consensus is that this did not work out very well, and I don't believe there is anything like it in place at the present time. The most useful thing would be for you to simply present your thoughts and evidence and responses to the assertions against you, as straightforwardly and clearly as you can, and perhaps others sympathetic to your positions will do the same.

I hope this is helpful. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Precedent-setting

There's no article about this legal notion on Wikipedia, and it's not exactly clear to me what the definition is. One editor removed the "precedent-setting" term from Association for Molecular Pathology, et al. v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, et al., arguing that it's not so until it gets to the US Supreme Court, even though one WP:RS called it that [4], although the source might be wrong. Could you shed some light on this matter? Thanks, Tijfo098 (talk) 01:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The article on stare decisis might cover some of what you are looking for here. Please take a look at that and tell me if that's what you had in mind or if you were thinking of something else. Beyond that, the term "precedent-setting" is actually somewhat vague.

There are rules, which vary from one jurisdiction to another, regarding what decisions are considered binding precedents (meaning that they must be followed), as opposed to "persuasive" precedents (which will receive consideration in a later decision but are not necessarily binding). For example, in the United States federal system, a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court will be a binding precedent throughout the country, but a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit will be finding on a federal judge in New York but only persuasive to a federal judge in California. In this light, a District Court decision, which is what you are addressing here, would never be binding precedent on other district judges, but could very well be highly persuasive authority depending on factors such as the quality of the reasoning in the opinion, the reputation of the authoring judge, and so forth. Perhaps what is meant is that this is the first reported court decision to have addressed a particular issue; if so, maybe that should be stated as the clearest wording. It might also be worthwhile to discuss whether the decision is being appealed, if this is known.

Hope this helps. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the nice summary. I'll add something to the lawsuit article about the perceived importance of it (there's plenty of detailed commentary on that in sources), while avoiding adjectives that could be misinterpreted. Maybe we should add "precedent-setting" to WP:Words to avoid? Tijfo098 (talk) 03:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Here you go :)

Fridae'sDoom has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Newyorkbrad has been made a member of the Order of the Mop, for their work as an admin and is entitled to display this award for being such a great admin, Kind regards and happy editing, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 6:06pm • 08:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

For a userbox version go here.

Thanks for your hard work over the years :) Keep up the good work! Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 6:06pm • 08:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome :) Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 5:13pm • 06:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of sources

I understand your unwillingness to vote for a finding including poor use of sources on the basis of edits to a single article. However Cla68's use of sources in the topic area, while not always as egregious as in the case given, is a serious problem especially in view of his high reputation which makes it hard for him to take concerns of other editors seriously. I believe Hipocrite and Dave Souza presented relevant evidence in their sections of the evidence page. His lax use of sources on matters of fact, even after being shown strong evidence that they were unreliable, drove me to despair. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have Diffs tony which shows his lax use of sources? I can only recall one mark nutley (talk) 23:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to spring new diffs at this point (even supposing they could be found) so I rely on the evidence page to which I refer above. It is the arbitrators' task to evaluate the evidence, I'm only here to remind them of material evidence I think they may have missed or forgotten in this long and exhausting case. --TS 23:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

O come on tony, you say he drove you to despair, at least one instance must have stood out. In all of the crap that went on, i really only recall one instance were cla got it wrong. I think (memory not so good) it was citing the hockey stick illusion for an blog article but the book only covered a little of it. Refresh my memory if i`m wrong mate, my short term memory is shot :o) mark nutley (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't the only person who remarked on Cla68's cavalier sourcing, so I can cite this section and this one, which have been on the evidence page for some time now. Several instances are given, particularly in the latter section. I will now cede the discussion to others. I have notified Dave Souza, Hipocrite, and Cla68 of this discussion. --TS 00:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well tony that`s a little naughty, just because a few editors say a book is fringe does not make it so. For instance, the only climatologist who so far commented on the hockey stick illusion said it was very accurate right? So what we actually have is wikipedia editors saying it is fringe, yet a respected scientist say it is accurate. Whom are we to believe? mark nutley (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Brief pointers to evidence, please; not bickering. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, what evidence would you like? Tonys diff leads to this More recently, Marknutley (talk · contribs) and Tillman (talk · contribs) have been arguing for inclusion in the biography of a scientist of a link to the article on The Hockey Stick Illusion, a barely notable book promoting fringe views and attacking the scientist's work, which has been ignored by the mainstream.[699] Clarification that the book promotes fringe views given here yet it was wikipedia editors who said this was fringe, and like i said above, the only person who works in the field has said it is a remarkable recounting of the entire controversy. So whom is correct? The wikipedia editors? Or judith curry? mark nutley (talk) 00:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

A problem with Cla68 that I've observed is that he sometimes tries to get a not so reliable book about climate science to be used as a source in a science article, by taking some trival fact from that book, putting it in the article and then citing that book. see e.g. here. Stephen Schneider was indeed a member of the institute's staff, but he was just a post-doc for a year there, as pointed out by Bali-ultimate on the talk page. Even if he had been there in a more senior position (which I actually assumed when I saw Cla's edit), you would not want to cite that book for such a fact, as the book comes with extra baggage that is better kept out of science articles. The POV of the book is not anti-climate science, I think, but that is besides the point. See here for full talk page discussion on this particular issue.

The same book was added by Cla68 as a source in other articles:

[5]

[6]

[7]

Count Iblis (talk) 00:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I just checked and want to note here that Cla68 hasn't been so active for the past month and has not edited at all for two weeks. He may not be in a position to respond on this discussion thread. --TS 00:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Tony notified me of this. Per NYB's request for "Brief pointers to evidence, please; not bickering." I will provide the following, which was in my evidence:

• fabricates the location of Al Gore - refers to this edit, which he called "sourced reliably." His purported facts were not in the source. His facts were, in fact, not true.
• [8] - refers to this support of sources as "reliably sourced." One of the sources was a deleted blog comment. Cla took this all the way to the enforcement board, where Lar backed him up, writing that the blog comment was "impeccably sourced." Hipocrite (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI: Meat, Libel, four AfDs, and assorted weirdness at David Bruce McMahan

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I have been following the discussion. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I just removed some insightful and intelligent remarks from a few IPs that crafted meaningful responses to your deletion of the article. If such deep philosophical soul searching continues, you might want to go ahead and semi-protect your page. Cheers, Sven Manguard _Talk 04:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention and concern regarding this whole situation. FYI, I've reviewed the IP remarks in the page history (I mention this so that the IPs might not feel compelled to repeat them to make sure I've seen them). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've requested userfication of the article in the ANI discussion. Per my comments there it is plain that there are plenty of sources (even outside of the issue causing problems there is fairly massive coverage) for a notable bio. Given that the article was kept 2 times out of 3, I think getting the older version userfied will be a fine start. I'll take it to DrV first before restoring (which I'd have to do due to the salting in any case). I'm asking you because an ArbCom member leaving the deletion log note you left will probably make others nervous about doing the userfication. Hobit (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I understand your view that an acceptable article could be created about this person, although the one we had yesterday most certainly wasn't it. Given the history involved, I am skeptical, and I can't see creating this page as a priority; but given that you unlike some of the SPAs understand the purpose of Wikipedia and the requirements of citing to reliable sources and avoiding undue weight problems, I suppose I can't deny your right to try. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

"The last diff cited is particularly troublesome"

Hi, since you said that the last cited diff is particularly troublesome, I would like a chance to explain. I posted this earlier, but I'm not sure everyone had a chance to read it. Here's my statement in full: [9][10][11][12] The first 4 diffs all relate to a single incident that happened over the course of a half a day . Yes, it's true that I edit-warred on a 1RR article over what I thought at the time was a BLP violation. In retrospect, I was naive and took the BLP policy too literally. As a result, I was blocked for 24 hours. I kicked and screamed a bit on my talk page, but I learned my lesson and have never repeated the offense.

[13][14][15][16][17] It's also true that when I first started editing this topic space, I said things that were less than ideal. At the time, I was still somewhat of a newbie and did not understand the nuances of which comments were acceptable and which ones weren't. In fact, I'm still learning. To be honest, an experienced editor should have taken me aside and helped explain this to me. In any case, I changed the tone of my comments around January of this year, and continue to make improvements as I continue to understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines better.

I'd also like to point out that this improvement spans not just the CC topic space, but across Wikipedia. As evidence, I would like to point ArbCom to the following discussion at our 9/11 attacks article.

Example

As evidence of improved conduct, I want to point out the following discussion at our 9/11 attacks article. An IP posts a message saying that the 9/11 was a false flag operation.[18] Rather than attacking the IP, I thanked them for their comments and patiently tried to explain our policies on neutrality, reliability, and WP:FRINGE.[19][20][21][22][23][24][25] When another editor used insulting language "utter morons",[26][27] I politely reminded the editor of our policies on being welcoming and civil.[28] The editor admitted his mistake, "Alas, you're right. My bad".[29] The IP even thanked me.[30] I then make a few edits on the FAQ regarding the importance of being civil.[31][32][33] The full discussion can be seen in its entirety here.[34]

[35] It's true that I once used the word "criminals" on an article talk page. But this is not a BLP violation. The University of East Anglia is not a person, it's a thing. According to our article,[36] the UEA has a staff of 2,966 people. Not a single person is mentioned anywhere in my comment or even the entire discussion. In any case, this comment was a one-time incident. I have never repeated the remark.

My point being is that I am not the same editor that I was around December/January and that I continue to look for ways in which to improve my conduct.

[37] This one is baffling. I notified the admins of an edit war and asked them to protect the page which NuclearWarefare eventually did.[38] I'm not sure what I did wrong. I wasn't a participant in the dispute, nor was I assessing blame. I simply used an admin board to notify admins of a problem.

In short, with the exception of this diff,[39] - which I don't understand what I did wrong - any issues with my conduct have already been corrected and there is no evidence of any continuing pattern of misconduct that warrants this FoF in an Arbitration Case. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your post and explanation, which I will consider carefully. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		I really appreciate the commentary you added with your vote on the ArbCom PD page finding about me. It means a lot. This has been a very stressful time, and it is very helpful to read your condemnation of the conduct that has been the source of the distress. This seems like a very good place to end my participation on Wikipedia. It's been interesting and informative, but it's best that I stay away now. Thanks again -- I'm leaving here with a little better feeling than if I had not read your comment. Minor4th 14:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia NYC Meetup Sat Oct 16

New York City Meetup Next: Saturday October 16th, Jefferson Market Library in Lower Manhattan Last: 05/22/2010

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference NYC 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Ambassador Program and Wikipedia Academy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision#Sockpuppetry in the Climate Change topic area

I have posted a direct and simple question for arbitors to verify. I believe the finding of fact referenced may materially mistake facts (writing "accounts" when it actually means "the effect of year old rangeblocks"). It would be nice if you could verify the wording of this proposed, currently passing, finding of fact. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the best person to figure out the answer to your question, but I'll try to figure out who is. Some of my colleagues on the committee are also my talkpage stalkers, so input here would be welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe this has now been addressed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Norm Crosby

I felt kind of bad doing it as it sort of invalidates the whole point of his blog posting. I do find it rather amusing (in an odd way) that a piece of uncaught vandalism on Wikipedia managed to insinuate itself into the real subject matter's life. Oh well, thats whats the wikipedia's living bio policy is for... Regards Eqdoktor (talk) 08:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that Mr. Evanier would prefer that we fix the errors rather than leave them intact as a memorial to his blogging. (Of course, he and we all would prefer still better if there were not so many errors to begin with.)

This is a rather minor instance of an error in a Wikipedia article affecting the article-subject's real life. Sadly, there have been much more serious examples, a few of which are discussed elsewhere on-wiki, as well as in my speech and my blog-posts (see my userpage for links if you're curious). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Reminder

So long ago that it has vanished off your talk page [40] you said you would re-check some diffs I was querying William M. Connolley (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I did. The result of the checking was that proposed finding 6 was superseded by an alternative proposal, 6.1, which is based on an overall evaluation of the editing on the Climate change pages rather than an evaluation of any one specific incident. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that was terribly confusing. So, should I now ignore that finding? Despite having a majority support - including from you - it is not going to pass? [Actually you can ignore that question. I've now realised that the page has been updated with passing / failing stuff, and 6 fails]. OK. 8.4 doesn't pass, in which case the fact that many of the diffs there are wrong becomes irrelevant? In which case I object to 8.5 on the grounds that it is (a) wrong (has focused a substantial portion of his editing in the Climate change topic area on biographical articles is false) and (b) unsupported by diffs William M. Connolley (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that you haven't done substantial editing of BLPs involving people involved in climate-change disputes. How many such edits do you estimate you have made? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

No idea. But BLPs are not my main interest. I assert that as a fraction of my total edits (note that the FoF says "focused a substantial portion of" which I take to mean percentage, rather than absolute number of edits), BLPS are small not substantial (oh, and of those that I have done, many/most are simply creation of people like Brian Gardiner which is non-controversial and certainly doesn't merit the finding). BTW, is this the "There is a pending thread on my talkpage in which I am awaiting some input from this editor"? - it is easy to lose track William M. Connolley (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Let's try this: do you accept that some of your edits to biographies of climate-change deniers or skeptics are problematic? If not sanctioned, would you plan to modify your behavior in this area? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I accept that some of my edits to BLPs were problematic. I have already largely stopped editing BLPs in this area (because the rules that wiki operates are so bad that they produce badly biased bios, a point that arbcomm seems to care little about, but it irritates me). That would continue. Incidentally, isn't "climate-change deniers" a bit problematic - after all, who would you place in that category? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether the following voluntary restriction would be acceptable to William and the Arbs: William agrees to a voluntary topic ban for BLP articles for a year and sticks to 0RR on climate science articles. The 0RR becomes 1RR after half a year (but perhaps the Arbs may demand that this proceeds after an appeal in which good behavior is demonstrated, i.e. that 0RR was not used as a backdoor to engage in conflicts).

The reason why I think this will give good results, is because William is one of the few editors on Wikipedia who has added large amounts of high quality content to the climate science articles. So, you want to find a formula where he can continue to do that, but you also want to keep him out of the controversies surrounding this area.

Now, if you are on 0RR, you are more or less forced you to engage in editing that is free of controversies, where content added to articles actually sticks and doesn't need to be defended. So, such a remedy may actually lead to William producing a lot more quality content than would have been the case had there been no ArbCom case. Count Iblis (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments on voluntary proposal

Found here[41] - i was trying to address the issues that have been raised. I'd like to get some comments on it - so that it can be submitted? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts to accommodate the concerns that have been expressed in this fashion. As you may have noticed, I haven't really been taking the lead among the arbitrators on the editor-specific remedies. If your proposal or a variant of it satisfies the other arbs, it will almost surely satisfy me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned that i'm not getting any response/feedback from arbitrators. Is there anything else i can do - or should i just await responses? Since it seems that the case is about to close, it seems a bit urgent - and sorry for having bothered you :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this is addressed now? Please let me know if I'm mistaken. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It is. Thank you for your concern, and shift of vote. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions in climate change

You appear to have both a support and an annotated but unstruck abstention on remedy 1.2.[42] Tasty monster (=TS ) 06:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed; thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your patience with my evidence.

I'll be done by midnight. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Request: WMC

I'd like to be "WMC" for a while, to avoid watchlist irritation. But I can't be, because Wmc (talk · contribs) is taken. Given that account has done nothing, and has been registered since 2005 (I think), can it be deleted so I can get WMC? (It is possible that I registered it; I don't remember) William M. Connolley (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I've checked to confirm that there is no other user on any project who is editing under User:WMC[43], so the username itself should be fine; if worse comes to worse, a bureaucrat could usurp User:Wmc for you. You could either start there, or go to WP:ACC to request that the account be made for you. I am assuming, of course, that you're looking to create an acknowledged alternate account; changing usernames would be something of a nightmare given your extensive contribution history. Feel free to link to this post when making your request. Best, Risker (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; I've now done that [44]. You learn something new every day (ideally). Yes; this would be an acknowledged alternate account William M. Connolley (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

All sorted out now William M. Connolley (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Still evaluating

You are, nominally, "still evaluating" FoF 22. But you've also voted to close the case. I hope you'll vote to reject that finding (and change your vote on several others while you're there) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Response

I saw your vote, respect your decision, appreciate your comments, and I'm regarding all of the arbitrators' comments as sincere, useful criticism. At the same time, I remain absolutely appalled in just the ways I've explained on the P.D. talk page. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

E-mail

I have sent you an important message via e-mail. Thanks, VictorianMutant (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Received and responded. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Upcoming trip

I will be travelling with limited online time and access for the next few days. (I'll be in San Francisco for Bouchercon, including chairing the Nero Wolfe banquet on Friday night.) I should be back in New York on Monday afternoon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I had you down as more of a Perry Mason type. Have fun! --TS 02:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful comment

Thanks for your thoughtful comment here.[45] I wish more Arbs would place more weight on when these diffs took place since there's little point to sanctioning editors for conduct that has already been corrected. Not to say that I'm perfect or that there isn't room for improvement, but I honestly don't think I am the same editor I was 9-10 months ago. I have no problem taking a voluntary 6 or 12 month topic ban. 71.57.126.233 (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Userfication

Would you be opposed to userfying the recently deleted David Bruce McMahan to User:Snottywong/David Bruce McMahan? I've been following the story on ANI and reading various sources, and I'd like to see if it is possible to address the BLP1E and RS issues and create an uncontroversial version of this article. If I end up creating an article that I think is worth keeping, I'll take it to DRV before recreating it in the main space. Thanks. SnottyWong ^squeal 22:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for the delay in responding. Please see my response to the same question from another editor here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy lives

114.76.235.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is clearly Tbsdy (and has admitted being so, so I don't think I've broken any of our increasingly optional and capriciously applied "policies" by saying so), as he's now editing again is his talk page to be restored? DuncanHill (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Per the discussion on ANI, I have done so. I'm informing you here as a courtesy as you seem to have some interest in this situation. Toddst1 (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I must object. - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 23:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Brad, the conversation has continued in a new section on ANI now. Toddst1 (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

As noted above, I was away the past few days. I gather that this has been resolved in my absence? If there is still a current issue, please let me know. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved. Toddst1 (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia DC Meetup, October 23

You are invited to Wikipedia DC Meetup #12 on Saturday, October 23, 6pm at Bertucci's in Foggy Bottom. Special guests at this meetup will include Wikimedia CTO Danese Cooper, other Wikimedia technical staff and volunteer developers who will be in DC for Hack-A-Ton DC. Please RSVP on the meetup page.

You can remove your name from the Washington DC Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested.

Hi, I noticed that you commented about editors not being on site anymore like Verbal on the PD page. So with that in mind I thought you might also be interested in knowing that Hipocrite recently just slapped a retired template on his pages. We lost a lot of good, long term editors with this case. Do you think it was worth it to name some of them like the case did? I think that maybe we cut off too much in this case. Sorry, I'm just sad to see so many names I'm used to seeing around doing good things depart like this. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for calling this development to my attention. It is an unfortunate one.

As one of the initial drafters of the proposed decision, it was my hope that the decision would not need to focus on naming and criticizing and sanctioning a large number of individual editors. (For those who have followed my performance as an arbitrator over the past two-plus years, that will not be shocking.) However, as the case developed, it became obvious that in some respects, the behavior of many editors surrounding this particular dispute was continuing to inflame the situation. In that context, several of my colleagues opined that we needed to take a different and more expansive approach to reducing the bitterness and hostility surrounding this entire topic area.

The ultimate decision, as you've seen, topic-banned a significant number of editors from the climate change topic area. I don't think anyone will doubt that this was not my first choice of how to solve the problems here (and you will have seen that I did not favor the bans in a couple of specific instances). I never like taking "Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and turning it into "Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit—except you"—but that is essentially what we do when we ban or topic-ban someone. Unfortunately, the consensus of the committee by the end of the overly protracted case came to be that nothing less than such an approach was going to help resolve, or even to substantially mitigate, the problems that continued to afflect this group of articles.

Virtually everyone involved in the case was—is—a valued editor, and I hope that those who have been removed from this one area of the project will refocus their talents and their knowledge on other areas. I also strongly hope that in doing so, they will not repeat the types of behavior that led to their being sanctioned.

Thanks again for your note. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with NYB that it is too bad that some editors feel the need to 'retire'. I hope that they mostly take a break and come back. The editors named in the decision who have 'retired' or otherwise left, were also the ones who seemed to have the hardest time not personalizing all aspects of the topic area. I do sincerely hope that they can come back and participate in other topic areas and enjoy this silly hobby. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Query

Newyorkbrad, you stated, "My attention has been drawn to this block..." Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs) has stated essentially this was not with him, as he asked you in a post to ANI who drew your attention to it [46]. Please note, in Georgewilliamherbert's very first comment at User talk:Philip Baird Shearer, he self-disclosed, "I saw this block happen (page here watchlisted), saw the unblock request happen, and was more or less simultaneously pinged by Cirt out of band". Can you please state who it was that brought your attention to User talk:Philip Baird Shearer? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 12:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see my, and others', comments in the ANI thread. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I see, Giano self-admitted it was him, [47]. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Can one not "self-admit" - could I admit on behalf of someone else?  Giacomo  21:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert was able to. -- Cirt (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there's been a spate of "admit[ting] on behalf of someone else" among world leaders. Pope John Paul II did it, so did Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, apologizing for this and that past situation for which these people had nothing to personally apologize; a recent Australian prime minister recently admitted to past mistreatment (by other Australians) of aborigines. There must be a Wikipedia article on this kind of thing somewhere (if it survived AfD). I have no idea what this particular dispute is about and this comment is not meant in any way to constructively help solve it. I am, however, available to admit to something on behalf of someone else, should my statesmanly services be needed. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Those examples are not examples of people admitting to malfiesence of their own, but rather the body/entity for which they represent (the Catholic Church, the USA, Australia, etc.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so the answer to Giano's question would be, "Yes, if duly appointed to represent the malfeasor in question." Except that the "NO! I'm Spartacus!" in your signature brings up a counter-example for which no appointment is necessary. Therefore I renew my offer, and I'll add that I charge a very competitive fee. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Your committee is an unreliable source about its own decisions

Reading some of this saga was amusing. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Most of the editors of his biography here would have a heart attack if they knew what the de:William Connolley says. You're apparently a reliable source in Germany, so there's hope for you yet. :-) Tijfo098 (talk) 05:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Perhaps someone should tell the German Wikipedia that Lawrence Solomon writes for the National Post and not the National Review. Risker (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

He writes for the National Review as well. [48] Tijfo098 (talk) 08:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Communicat

Would it be acceptable to contact other people who have interacted with this user about the RfA he has filed against me or would that be considered canvassing? I see that the admin GeorgeWilliamHerbert has already left a comment. Edward321 (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Based on developments thus far, I don't think that'll be necessary at this time. (Just as an FYI point, "RfAr" conventionally refers to requests for arbitration; "RfA" is used for Requests for adminship, which is very different.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops. I'm obviously no expert with the acronyms. Are there any points in my RfAr post that are unclear? Are there any points in Communicat's posts that you feel I have not addressed properly? Edward321 (talk) 23:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we probably have enough information to decide on the request. (I want to read through everything one more time before voting.) Of course, if other arbitrators would like anything else to be submitted, they will say so. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Official correction?

Can we expect a public correction of this misrepresentation of the recent ArbCom case in the press, or will you silently stand by while your decision us used to attack editors? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think it is correct to expect Arbcom to correct blogs and uncontrollable opinion threads and suchlike, it is to be totally expected in the situation. Off2riorob (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Also Also Stephen and TonySideaway are mentioned here and theres a lot of it out there. Off2riorob (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I really don't care about the blogosphere. But when opinion pieces in the Wall Street Journal start misrepresenting the case (in what I can only call depressingly bad journalism), I would hope the mere regard for the truth would motivate ArbCom to issue a correcting statement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I see it as users should be aware that they are not editing in a dark sock and that their actions do have an effect in the real world and they should expect it to be reported in a way they may not like and that users actions here may have an effect on their real life, as the contributions of users to the articles of living people here has an effect on the subjects of our articles. Off2riorob (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

"may not like" is not the issue. Objectively false is. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. If you don't want to get burnt, get out of the fire. Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Who needs firefighters, after all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems this is going to result in an ArbCom case about the ArbCom case in the press or something like that. [49]. There you go: [50]. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The blog entry of Luboš Motl, mentioned above [51], is actually quite funny. I almost feel like popping down to that Scientology shop they have on the Tottenham Court Road in my poshest frock so I can get a photo taken of me being a transvestite and trying out an E-meter (which would be the closest I've ever come to being a Scientologist). Who cannot love the blogosphere at a time like this? --TS 02:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The comments about fires and getting burnt seem destined to descend into more juvenile bickering about this topic. We are not going to have any more of that on my page, or for that matter on any other page. (For what it's worth, I think that one point relevant to Off2riorob's comment was noted in principle 7 of the Alastair Haines 2 case.)

Stephan Schulz, the WSJ link you cite at the beginning of your post appears to require a subscription. I will go ahead and subscribe so that I can read the post you cite, if you tell me it is important that I do so as a matter of fairness, but I don't think we can expect that of all the arbitrators or of all the other editors who might join in this discussion. Can you tell me what specific correction you think is necessary and why. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Check your email. NW (Talk) 02:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

For some reasons I can view the article when going there via Google. I can send you a PDF of it (but I assume NW has taken care of that). The editorial been also mirrored (with dubious legality) elsewhere in the Blogosphere. I'm concerned about the general tone of the comment, but in particular about the following statements:

• "[...]last week Wikipedia acknowledged it had been hijacked by global warming alarmists who squelched dissenting science"
• "He [WMC] routinely deleted entries that presented competing views and barred contributors with whom he disagreed."
• "They [ArbCom] also banned other posters who had turned Wikipedia into their global warming propaganda outlet."

At least the first and the third clearly ascribe to ArbCom positions that I do not find in the decision and that I think have no support. The second is nominally in the voice of the WSJ editor, but easily gives the impression that it is backed by the ArbCom case. It is, of course, factually wrong, and an explicit statement to that effect would be a useful thing. Sorry about the fireman - I could not resist the image. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I have seen the article now (which I understand was in the hard-copy paper, which I often buy, but missed on this date). I agree that it is not a neutral summary of the committee decision. Given that we are discussing errors in reporting of a decision, rather than errors in the decision itself (though I am sure you would contend there are those as well), I am not sure what, if anything, we can do about the matter. We have no mechanism, as a committee, for issuing press releases nor for responding to press accounts. How specifically do you think the committee ought to proceed? (A more appropriate venue than my talkpage might be found for this discussion, though I'd appreciate a link if that occurs.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You could send a letter to the editor of the WSJ on behalf of the committee. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I think an unambiguous on-wiki statement by ArbCom would be the simplest and best way. Apparently the text of the decision itself is open to misinterpretation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

At risk of opening myself up to accusations violating the topic ban, please allow me to give a word of advice here, NYB. If you haven't noticed, there is an extremely intense and hostile battle taking place on the Internet over global warming by advocates on different sides. Please be careful that you and the Committee don't get drawn into it. Cla68 (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

They already have been drawn into it, as their decision has been appropriated by the WSJ editorial page, one of the more consistently and fiercely partisan voices in the battle. I agree that it might be better not to respond. After all, unless the Journal editorial is frankly defamatory, they're free to spin the decision any way they like. And getting into a back-and-forth with the WSJ editorial page is a no-win situation. Readers' bullshit detectors will either start clanging, or they won't. MastCell ^Talk 00:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Reporters usually write articles from multiple sources and lines of research. It is highly unlikely that they would simply summarize the ArbCom decision and that they would include unspoken background information as well. I'll also note that some of the things Stephan complains about can be confirmed through other lines of research. I don't think it is a good precedent for Wikipedia to start issuing press releases or corrections to news outlets, most of the mistakes were minor and inconsequential, and there is already a problem with reporters directly quoting or sourcing things to wikipedia and wikipedia in turn using those sources for its articles. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, TGL is topic-banned from CC-related articles and processes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless somebody tries to use these articles (there is not only one) with all their manifest inaccuracies as sources, I don't think they're a problem for Wikipedia--and even then I see little role for the Committee except in any arbitration arising.

I'll tell you this for nothing: anybody involved in editing climate change articles should steer clear of any such dispute, on either side. Ignore this advice at your peril.

The editors whose reputations are harmed should contact the newspapers directly, and then use the regulatory bodies or the law if that fails. Tasty monster (=TS ) 17:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I found that the WSJ column accurately represented the overall tone and spirit of the arbcom case. Yes, they erred in some details but such things are inside baseball not relevant to the world beyond Wikipedia. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Tries? Some editors already tried that. It's a problem when the external sources, normally considered WP:RS, don't reflect ArbCom decisions correctly, but at the same time the ArbCom pages are not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles in order to correct any errors in the mainstream media articles retelling the ArbCom decision. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not a problem for Wikipedia, only for the unfortunate editors who do not understand the verifiability policy. Tasty monster (=TS ) 03:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia or ArbCom contacting the Wall Street Journal is a terrible idea. Aside from the Barbra Streisand effect, it is not necessary as the decision speaks for itself. If an individual arbitrator or Wikipedian wants to write a letter, that is a good and even desirable idea. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've written a letter to the WSJ editor (well, written an email) which concentrates on the inaccuracies and spin in the reporting (i.e. the arbitrators did not rule on the truth or otherwise of man-made global warming; editors from both sides were topic banned). I'd be a little surprised if they published it, as it goes against their editorial line and it's a week late, but they might. Serious newspapers are supposed to take more care over accurate reporting, and I have had letters published by newspapers in the past. A letter from an arbitrator would carry more weight, but might be politically difficult (are you speaking in a personal or official capacity?). I agree an official reply carries the danger of turning one paper's spin into something bigger than it actually is, so is probably not appropriate. Given the minefield that is public relations though, there may come a time when Wikipedia may need to consider employing a public relations consultant for advice when it's in the news. --Merlinme (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

User "Mung Monkey" and Checkuser results

Howdy. I think I can guess the answer, but it's worth a shot asking. You stated on Mung Monkey (talk · contribs)'s talk page that a Checkuser on the account shows a history of vandalism (assuming my user page). Is there any way I could find out what the original User or IP was that started this mess? It's morbid curiosity on my part to look back at my contributions to see who I pissed off and how. Thanks! --TreyGeek (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I can't find anything that would answer that. As you may be aware, there are time limits on how long the checkuser data are retained. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I assumed the information was unavailable for one reason or another. I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask anyways. Thanks! --TreyGeek (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Rogue administrators

I am writing because one or more admins are blocking accounts from users who happen not to agree with them. My crime was to post these comments: User talk:BadBabysitter. I will leave it to you to decide whether or not the charges are valid. My attempts to complain have also been blocked. Attempts to contact you by email and phone also failed. I had to change my IP address in order to be able to contact you. I suspect a very large number of users have similarly been falsely accused and have been unable to contact you because they did not know how to alter their IP address. Alternate user name (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears that User:BadBabysitter was blocked for "misusing multiple accounts" in violation of policy. Is this a correct summary of your behavior? Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No!

According to Daniel Case, the reason I was blocked is that my editing attracted scrutiny. [52] Since I did not actually do any edits [53] it is clear that the charges against me was trumped up by [name of administrator removed] [54]. It remains unclear what is motivating other admins to go along with this sham. However, there is no doubt in my mind about what is motivating [that administrator].

Emails to arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org from aol.com are still being returned. 2nd Alternate user name (talk) 07:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone had reverted this post on the basis that it was blatant block evasion. This was a correct action to take; however, I am reinstating the post here (redacting the name of someone who seems to be being accused of something, I'm not sure what) per WP:IAR and responding on-wiki because of the assertion that some e-mails are not getting through to the Arbitration Committee mailing list. If true, I can understand why the issue would be raised here. I will check into this aspect of the matter.

In the interim, you may forward your e-mail appeal to me (my e-mail address is on the Arbitration Committee page) and I will forward it to the banned-user appeals subcommittee. In candor, the appeal does not strike me on its face as necessarily likely to have great merit, and the personal attack on an administrator does not help matters, but the blocked user is entitled to have it reviewed and a decision made. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you think...

...you will have time to revisit this in the near future? It has been over a month since your last comment there. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I have been waiting to see if another arbitrator will offer a motion, since I don't think it is necessarily helpful for the same person to propose the motions all the time (and develop more of a reputation than I already have for being the soft touch on the committee). Since there doesn't seem to be any progress, however, I will post something a motion if no one else does. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

tying another tack

Just for your interest User talk:Scott MacDonald/Pragmatic BLP. Maybe a more consensual approach will get us somewhere.--Scott Mac 13:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I appreciate your continuing interest in this entire subject, and I'll take a close look. P.S. If I decide to run for arbitrator again, may I use the slogan "RE-ELECT THE WORST MEMBER OF ARBCOM" and credit it to you? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

And then I'll vote support for "the worst member of arbcom" - what does that say about my objectivity?--Scott Mac 15:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarification request

You were aware that mark was blocked at the time at which you offered him the undertaking, right? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I actually was not quite clear about the chronology. In any case, I was not offering him anything (this isn't a situation where I could act unilaterally), but soliciting a piece of information that might be very relevant for the discussion. If still blocked, MarkNutley can address my inquiry on his talkpage. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• shrugs* So many unfortunate users are unable to be helped because of procedure, red tape, peer pressure, and other things, all of which is interpreted to a level of absurdity. Too bad, I guess. Cheers for the clarification, Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I share your frustration. When I ran for arbitrator three years ago, one of my hopes was to simplify the process. Instead, over time, a series of procedural innovations have been implemented, each of which individually was a worthwhile improvement, but all of which collectively have made the arbitration pages an at-times impenetrable thicket. I myself am not always sure whether a given request should be submitted as arbitration enforcement or as an appeal to the committee or as a ban appeal or as a clarification or as an amendment. And I've been an arbitrator for almost three years and was a clerk before that (and in real life am an experienced corporate litigation attorney)—so how are newcomers supposed to feel? Unfortunately, short of ditching the entire set of pages and starting over, I don't have many suggestions for how to simplify, simplify. There will be a substantial group of new arbitrators coming aboard in January: perhaps they will have valuable suggestions. As you are clearly knowledgeable about how arbitration works, I would also welcome yours. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty knowledgeable about how arbitration works also (I hire experienced corporate litigation attorneys). The problem with Arbitration as done now is that it is modeled after an Adversarial system, as opposed to a Inquisitorial system. The key feature of an Adversarial system is that both parties are expected to be represented by someone who knows how to do representation.

If arbiters were willing to actually spend some time discussing things with the parties, asking questions, clarifying demands, and what not, throughout the case, as opposed to parachuting in at the last moment with rulings from the bench, Arbitration would work again.

Further, having been leaked a substantial body of your mailing-list and sekrit wiki in the past, I would note two things - first, that you should immediately cease all back-room negotiations, as they are anathema to justice (sunlight is the best disinfectant). And further, that any attempt by any arbiter to discuss public information in a non-public forum should be revealed. Parties should have the right to face their accusers - so if an arbiter does a lot of work gathering evidence, that evidence should not be relayed to your mailing list/sekrit wiki and then piped to the proposed decision without being submitted as evidence. Hipocrite (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, do not hire lawyers, and do not play a lawyer on TV. But I agree with every word that NYB and Hipocrite say above. During the CC arbcom case arbitrators contacted me unbidden by email to discuss the case. This left a very bad taste in my mouth. I have no illusions that I am sufficiently important to merit special consideration in this way, so I have to wonder: What else is going on in private communications out of view of the community? Are parties negotiating directly with arbs behind the scenes? Are interested non-parties lobbying for or against sanctions for specific individuals? Private communications between arbs are likely necessary, at least to a limited degree, but discussing the case with those outside of arbcom in this way really soured me on the whole process. The prospect of such backroom shenanigans led me to a complete loss of faith in arbcom as a group, though there are specific individual arbs whom I trust. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

wow. I am saddened to read that. Were the contacts about 'private' type information? or of a more general getting your take on the case? (fully ok to not answer, if you read this). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Hipocrite that the ArbCom case process needs to change to an inquisitorial system. Cla68 (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Far too sensible, so it'll never happen. Malleus Fatuorum 23:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Never is too strong a word. I'm a strong proponent of inquiries rather adversarial proceedings, and panels rather than all arbs en banc (and I'm not alone). I think that would be both more fair /and/ considerably simpler and faster. What's needed for that change, however, is (a) a strong consensus within the committee and (b) strong consensus in the community (which will help with (a)). Get the ball rolling, and I'll be on the frontlines with you — but this needs to come from outside the committee or it's just going to be destroyed with cries of "grabbing power" like most other changes we try to do. People hate any change. — Coren ^(talk) 13:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing that stops you from getting involved in cases as an inquisitor as opposed to a judge. Have you considered just doing it? Hipocrite (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not helpful to do so unless the case is built that way, and the process designed to build the case around that. This requires getting rid of the evidence page, where people can just dump stuff unbidden, into interrogatories where no outside comments are welcome (no bickering allowed by kibitzers). For this to work, it means all the arbs will need to be participating since their questions can only be answered if they ask them — which quickly becomes unworkable if every inquest must be made en banc... and then having arbs vote that were not involved is iffy at best (they can theoretically examine the inquest and judge from that, but that would be a poor way IMO).

In other words, it's not a matter of detail but of basic principles. I suppose there is nothing that prevents me from starting a case this way if everyone is agreeable to it — but would you be willing to be a guinea pig if a case you raised eneded up before ArbCom? — Coren ^(talk) 14:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, do you remember what happened when FT2 tried to do a lone summary proceeding against OrangeMarlin? The community went off on him big time. How about when Kirill Lokshin and Casliber tried to set up an advisory committee (I don't remember exactly what it was called even though I was on it)? Same thing. If one or two arbitrators try to lead the way, he or she will get slammed big time. The entire committee needs to come out with a unified statement saying, "This is the new procedure we'll be testing on a trial basis for the next six months. Comments are welcome, but we won't be considering changing our minds until the six months or up" or something like that. Cla68 (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

(butting in) Cla68, for the record, it was the Advisory Council on Project Development, which I was actually neutral about --> (see vote at

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_4#Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development_convened), as what I feared would happen did happen. However, once it was on the table I felt it was unfair to just dump on it, so I tried (unsuccessfully) tidying up and getting folks on the same page, but yeah, agree that sticking one's neck out can be very risky...Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Recall also that I tried introducing some procedural innovations at the outset of the recent Climate change case. Unfortunately, that turned out to be way too massive and sprawling and contentious a case to really try out new procedures in (even though the very reason I thought it needed new procedures was because the case would be massive and sprawling and contentious). Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Count me also as a proponent of the inquisitorial approach (though the surface association with "Inquisition" is unfortunate to say the least). Perhaps a good way to trial this is first to sketch out the broad lines of how it will work, get that more or less solid, and then try it on an arbitration case. One way to choose a case to try it on might be: when arbitration requests are made, the committee polls the participants on which arbitration method they'd like -- inquisitorial or adversarial -- before the proceedings begin. alanyst ^/talk/ 17:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

As I have been asked regarding my experiences with ArbCom and engaged directly by an editor that I have previously been found to be "battlegrounded" against, I have no comment, as I wish to disengage from this topic area. Hipocrite (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't help but think that if WMC had injected himself into the conversation as Cla68 has done, there would have been shrill denunciations ("can't you guys stay away from each other?") and probably a block. That's not to say that Cla68 is actually doing anything wrong, just to point out that the way the sanctions are being applied is arbitrary and partial. There's a zero-tolerance policy applied to some editors while others are given more latitude. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

One would be hard pressed to consider that point of the conversation as being even remotely related to CC; I certainly would not have raised an eyebrow because WMC discussed the process of arbitration (though I expect that, in his current mood, he would not have been especially interested in doing so). — Coren ^(talk) 17:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the adversarial vs. inquisitorial way of doing things, I really think that since the Arbitration process was Jimbo's baby (and he still has his finger in the pie in relation to selecting arbitrators), he should spend some foundation dollars and engage a consultant to architect an effective arbitration process that works, for the sake of both the arbitrator's sanity and the project's governance. After all, professional arbitrators work year-in year-out without getting burned out, how do they do it? The Foundation spent buckets of money on developing a new improved user interface in the hope of attracting and retaining new users, some dollars spent streamlining the dispute resolution processes would be more effective use of foundation dollars, in my view. --Martin (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI thread

May I ask what is going on with User:KevinDonahoe? Your post on the ANI thread ([55]) made it sound like something is going on behind the scenes.

Also, I requested a RevDel of the legal threat made on my talk page. Can you please help with that? —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Responded via e-mail. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I've got a related OTRS ticket, could you contact me with what you'ld like me to do with it? I'm on IRC, TheCavalry. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections

Brad, you are one of the few here clever enough to know the final and definitive answer to this question. Following the forthcoming elections, must successful candidates disclose their real names etc to who ever ultimately is running this show. In the current climate of "outing", mistrust and internet libel which prevails, this is obviously a major consideration for all candidates, but especially so for those candidates who already hold responsible and/or high profile positions in real life (I am thinking of those concerned with the judiciary, high ranking military personnel and other senior public sector workers - the very people who perhaps have the leadership qualities, experience and education most needed by the Arbcom). It's my opinion, having to disclose private information is a risk that many potential candidates will find not worth taking. A simple "yes they must" or "no, they need not", will be fine. I cannot be bothered to engage in a prolonged debate with the Peanut Gallery over why a self-disclosed Randy from Boise will make a better Arb than a High Court Judge, Admiral of the Fleet, or Professor from the University of Wherever. Thank you.  Giacomo  13:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I know of no legal requirement that arbitrators (or anyone else associated with Wikipedia/Wikimedia other than members of the Foundation Board of Trustees and paid employees) provide identification. However, in 2007, the Board of Trustees adopted a resolution requiring that anyone seeking advanced permissions involving access to private information must provide identification to the Office (and must be age 18 or over and of the age of majority at their place of residence). This was initially applied to Checkusers, Oversighters, and Stewards, but the Arbitration Committee (before I was a member and over my disagreement) subsequently interpreted the resolution imposing the age requirement as applying to arbitrators, because confidential checkuser and oversight data are discussed on the arbitrators' mailing list. Logically, the same resolution imposed the age and the identification requirements, so if the one applies to arbitrators so would the other, but this is not how things were implemented, at least not at first. Rather, when I was elected arbitrator at the end of 2007, I believe the position was that identification was not required to serve as an arbitrator, but was required to obtain the checkuser and/or oversight permissions that most arbitrators are granted. Subsequently, though, there was a well-known situation involving an arbitrator who had not identified to the Office, so the policy or its implementation may have been changed around that time. To the best of my knowledge, all current arbitrators are identified to the Office.

Despite your kind words at the beginning of the question, I don't know whether the Office (or the Committee, for that matter) now takes the position that all arbitrators are required to identify themselves before taking an arbitrator position, even if they are not going to seek Checkuser or Oversight access. I will try to find out the answer, and if I can, will post further here.

As I am well aware from my own experience, anyone interested in becoming an arbitrator should assume that there is a high likelihood that his or her identity will be publicly revealed at some point, irrespective of whether one identifies with the Office and irrespective of any efforts made to keep the information confidential. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you Brad, that was very helpful. It does seem to be something of a confused mystery - one that should perhaps be definitively clarified before elections commence. I look forward to your further discoveries on the matter.  Giacomo  16:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

All arbs from last year's election were not given access to the mailing list, nor oversight/checkuser until we had identified with the foundation. SirFozzie (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

So, in other words: If you want to be an Arb, you have to give the foundation your name and address, and trust them to keep it to themselves. No thank you.  Giacomo  12:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

In all fairness, Giano, I don't think there has ever even been an allegation that the foundation has ever leaked or used (let alone misused) the identifications provided to them. — Coren ^(talk) 13:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• I am making no allegations whatsoever. However,I can think of a person once close to Jimbo (more than one actually) who has transpired to be less than...well let's not go there. I thnk I will just keep my thoughts and my name to myself. Trust only oneself and one is seldom dissapointed (or outed) - cynical but true - unfortunately.  Giacomo  18:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

And you think this on the basis of what exactly? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

G- the simple answer is: Yes, if you want to be an arb you have to ID, just like CU an OS. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Than you Rlevse, I think we have just established that. But why? An Arb does not have to CU or OS - or it it to ensure that only a certain type become Arbs?  Giacomo  21:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Same reason CU and OS holders have to ID and be over 18, massive access to private data--on a scale non-arbs simply do not understand unless they one day become arbs. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Really? I strongly doubt that. I suspect it's more to keep a hold over/and ensure Arbs are of a certain type. Dealing with people called "Shrinking Violet" and "Jack the Ripper" does not need anonymous beaurocrats in an office in Godknowswhere to have ones private details. Even if it did, I have been needlessly checkusered on a number of occasions - does having that persons name known (David Gerard - another of Jimbo's mates, I beleive) make such behaviour any better, OK or above board?  Giacomo  21:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Come, now. In what way does the foundation gain any hold on me for having a copy of my passport (which, incidentally, does not provide them with an address)? Or what kind of "type" is one being for the simple act of being able to produce copy of some sort of ID to prove majority? — Coren ^(talk) 22:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Seeing as there is a greater chance of me being unanimously elected to the Arbcom and learning to spell than there is of me furnishing "The Foundation" with a copy of my passport (photoshopped or otherwise) I suspect yhis conversation is going nowhere. Suffice to say, I have been around long enough, spoken to enough people over the years and have heard enough over those years to decide to keep my own identity private, what others do is entirly their own affair. However, the Arbcom should be open to all who contribute and have something to offer. CU and oversight are quite seperate and should remain so - that so much power is invested in so few is another debate entirely.  Giacomo  22:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
  • But that would be the point. It is quite impossible to be on ArbCom without having exactly the CU and OS information flooded your way; one role implies access to the same data as the two other. (Not counting the inherent silliness in being part of the body charged with overseeing those two functions and yet not being authorized to even inspect their data). — Coren ^(talk) 23:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Well Coren, I think we must agree to differ. I strongly beleive the Arbcom should be on proven merit and open to all who contribute to the project. Adjudicating cases does not require CU or OS rights - I have seen and know of so very many cases or abuse concerning both CU and OS priviledges that the office having a copy of a passport is not worth a tuppeny damn. It;s just a pity that Arbs have to be chosen from the ranks of those with nothing to lose. A great pity but thank you for explaining your viewpoint.  Giacomo  19:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You are free to choose the conspiracy theory of your choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

OH don't be so bloody ridiculous! Editors who choose to serve the project, but maintain their privacy should not be discriminated against. I seem to remember you becoming a rampaging hysteric when you thought I had "outed" you as the original Randy from Boisse!  Giacomo  21:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Mirror, mirror. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see, you put your name in the public domain, so everyone else should also. Most enlightening. I think this is going nowhere. I shall leave you to it RLevse.  Giacomo  21:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I resigned from OTRS about the time they started asking us to identify. I was distinctly uneasy about being asked to identify, although I couldn't put my finger on why. Then I began to ask, why did they want it and in what circumstances would they disclose it? Now, I'm not paranoid about the Foundation as big brother. However, the Foundation's legal defence is that it is a service provider (s2??? immunity) and that any "bad stuff" is done by independent users not acting agents. So, what would happen if someone sued and named some OTRS op (arb or any other power-user) who got in the way? Would the Foundation simply roll over and hand up the minions for the legal slaughter? The legal advice I got, when I consulted a lawyer, asked if the Foundation offered any indemnity to its agents. When I said no, the lawyer asked why on earth I wanted to do voluntary work, working with angry and potentially litigious customers, acting as an agent for an organisation that offered no indemnity and would probably accept no vicarious responsibility for my acts? (A litigant may well go after me if the Foundation had immunity.) The chances of being named in a lawsuit were very small certainly, but if I were named, the foundation would likely hand over my name and I'd have the expense and stress of involvement. Even if the suit were wholly spurious my own family finances would be on the line. That considered, I stepped back.--Scott Mac 19:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

My own thoughts entirely. Life's too short and the stress is too great. Outing could be the least of one's problems. Brad could you clarify the indemnity provided to Arbs etc by The Foundation?  Giacomo  20:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Here in the US our home owners insurance policies cover us against liability for work done as a volunteer. If one deems that coverage insufficient, an additional umbrella liability policy is available for a few hundred bucks per year. Perhaps Wikipedia could buy insurance to cover volunteers who might be especially likely to get sued, such as arbitrators, functionaries and possibly even administrators. Jehochman ^Talk 20:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Here in Europe, it mostly does not. Even if it did, I suspect most of the students writing this project are not home owners - so what has the foundation to offer candidates - indemnity, discretion or very litle?  Giacomo  20:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I am a member of a volunteer environmental and horticulture group and garden club here in Australia, and a few years ago there was a huge issue with indemnity, with insurance companies hiking up premiums by up to 20 fold. Things got alot stricter, and one had to ensure that garden visits and bushwalks were properly registered etc. I shudder to think how an insurance company would quote the WMF - per editor? per active editor? per indentified person? yikes.........actually gives me food for thought. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I am a Scout Leader, and we have third-party indemnity insurance, and trustee liability insurance. Don't know what it costs, but the HQ fee we pay is under £30 pa, and we have far more opportunity to kill and maim and destroy property than Arbs do. Unfortunately, WMF does not appear ever to have considered protecting its volunteers to be a part of its remit. DuncanHill (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I suspect there is afair bit of subjectivity among insurance companies concerning measuring of risk in volunteer organizations. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

And the third party risks are infinitely greater in real life. A vol contributor to the project following in good faith the policies and guidelines of the project is already protected by those guidelines and policies.Off2riorob (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think editors ought to be indemnified. I do think that people who are "asked" to do a responsible job that exposes them sometimes to angry people who feel they've been libelled, either need some protection against legal consequences of honest mistakes, or indeed of spurious lawsuits. If they don't have basic indemnity, then it should be made really clear that should they be named in a lawsuit they are on their own. I do think that should make any Wikipedian with assets stop and think. Even being named in a totally hopeless lawsuit could be dreadful. And besides those who identify to the foundation but don't otherwise disclose their identities should know what will happen if the foundation is asked by a litigant for their identity. Sure the Foundation must abide by any court demand, but will it fight a groundless request? Will it go to court to protect the identity of a volunteer? Or will it roll over at the fist lawyer's letter? I genuinely don't know the answer. But those who work with OTRS, arbs, oversight and possibly checkuser are probably particularly vulnerable here. At lest a lawsuit which cites me as an admin would have to get both the Foundation and my ISP to roll over before they could identity me.--Scott Mac 23:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Most reputable volunteer organisations screen their volunteers before accepting them. That makes it a lot easier to insure or indemnify them. Obvious personality disorders, histories of unsavory behavior, habits of propositioning other volunteers, or an unwillingness to comply with an organisation's basic behavioral expectations are all grounds for refusing or releasing a volunteer. Wikipedia doesn't roll like that; we take people with any (or all) of the above. I don't see how the Foundation could indemnify any editor unless they perform some sort of screening first. When I've volunteered for actual, serious, reputable volunteer organizations, I've gone through background checks, drug tests, you name it...

That said, I'm with Scott when it comes to identifying. I will never apply for checkuser, oversight, Arbitrator, or any advanced ops on this site, because I value my pseudonymity, and I just don't have faith in the Foundation to protect it if I entrust it to them. That's fine; collecting more ops on this site isn't exactly on my bucket list, so it's a trade-off I'm comfortable with. I like Wikipedia, but if anything I did on this site caused me or someone I cared about one second of real-life concern, I'd be gone, immediately and permanently. This site persistently hosts a small number of people with frank personality disorders. A much larger fraction of the community is not frankly pathological, but lacks all reasonable sense of perspective. Unless that changes - and I don't see it changing - I'm not willing to compromise whatever pseudonymity I still enjoy. I admire the courage of people who edit under their real names, in the same way I admire the courage of people who do trick motorcycle jumps over flaming trucks, but that's not me. MastCell ^Talk 04:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Many members of arbcom were outed as acts of harassment over the last few years. All of these instances have not been discussed on site because it would feed the harassers. But I can say that more than one person resigned and/or went on extended leaves because of it during the past few years. So, in the end using a pseudonym is not a guarantee that you will remain anonymous. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 07:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I dunno Mastcell, I am not sure screening is performed ubiquitously. Then there is the nature of screening. In reality, one has to do something fairly extreme to get a slam-dunk black mark - e.g. getting arrested/charged/bankruptcy etc. There are plenty of problematic people who haven't hit one of these 'red flags' and hence may not be picked up on screening as such. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Most of the volunteer work I've done involved working directly with people in potentially vulnerable situations, so perhaps the screening was more stringent than, say, adopt-a-road. Still, I think this site's standards for its volunteers are a few powers of ten lower than any other volunteer organization I can think of. Even when an editor's goals are clearly in diametric opposition to this site's goals and policies, it takes a federal case to deal with the situation. Can you imagine if someone volunteered to make phonecalls for the United Way, but instead of soliciting money for charity, they tried to convince the people on the other end of the phone that HIV was harmless or that Barack Obama was a sekrit Muslim? How long would it take for the United Way to gently but firmly inform such a volunteer that their services were no longer necessary? MastCell ^Talk 04:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

... or did the soliciting as expected, but were verbally abusive to the other volunteers? The problem with crowd sourcing is that, well, your sourcing is done by a crowd, with all that entails. There are things we can do to help; but there are a few fundamental problems that need a-fixin'. — Coren ^(talk) 13:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)