User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2010/Nov

SPI
Could you please comment on an SPI about mark nutley. TFD (talk) 04:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This situation is being looked at by several checkusers. I don't have the sort of technical expertise required for this particular type of inquiry, so I need to defer to them at this stage. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Mark's climate change clarification
Regarding your question to MarkNutley, he isn't in a position to answer, as his access to his talk page has now been blocked. Can you have a look at this. I have to agree with Stephan Schulz and Q Science here, the amount of behavioural evidence appears to be way to thin to draw a solid conclusion without a confirming CU, and also Mark wasn't given an opportunity to defend himself with access to his own talk page blocked by the admin actioning the SPI. --Martin (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am reviewing the checkuser evidence relevant to this block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Noting that this is now addressed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks. In regard to your original question, Mark did agree to such an undertaking here. --Martin (talk) 09:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this thread has been superseded by other events, but thanks again for your input. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Ping
Hey NYB, when you get a chance could you catch me on IM or IRC? Thanks. Drosenthal (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, but unless it's an emergency it'll have to be tonight or tomorrow. If it is an emergency please send an e-mail. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not. I'll be AFK through the evening so lets try tomorrow. Drosenthal (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

RfAr filed by Communicat
I'm not sure what you're looking for in an update. The Incident Board discussion was archived without anything being resolved. Georgewilliamherbert has started preparing a RfC/U, but I do not know when he will post it. Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive647 shows that I and Nick-D are willing to particpate, though the latter does not believe it the the best venue.(07:05, 3 November) Communicat accused Georgewilliamherbert of "bias and prejudgement" (09:19, 1 November), then said "I would support an Rfc that confines itself essentially to a review of alleged systematic bias at milhist project" (19:15, 3 November) then refused to participate in any RfC where his conduct would come under scrutiny (19:25, 3 November) I have considered posting about author Stan Winer on the reliable sources noticeboard and possibly the copyright violation board, since I have doubts about the ownership of the Vorster picture, but felt that would merely inflame matters at this time. Edward321 (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The user conduct RFC is still in progress but got pushed down the priority stack by a couple of other problem user things today. Hopefully tonight or tomorrow morning, but I have a rocket propulsion conference Saturday afternoon...  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've updated my comments on the arbitration requests page. Thank you both for your input. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome and thank you for your comments there. Should I repost my comments here to the RfAr? Edward321 (talk)
 * It would probably help make sure the other arbitrators see it if you do. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done and thanks. Shouldn't the numbers there be 1/6/0/1, not 1/5/0/1? Edward321 (talk) 04:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Fixed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

My userpage
Ok, done. Just for your information, the "int." stood for "interest." Thanks in advance, Carolyn Baker III (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia DC Meetup 13
You are invited to Wikipedia DC Meetup #13 on Wednesday, November 17, from 7 to 9 pm, location to be determined (but near a Metro station in DC).

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can join the mailing list.

You can remove your name from future notifications of Washington DC Meetups by editing this page: Meetup/DC/Invite/List. BrownBot (talk) 13:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the talk page stalking
Hey, Brad. I forgot to mention earlier, but thanks for removing those links from Beaver2000000(etc) earlier. The links raising the pagerank probably wouldn't have even occurred to me, so it's good you took care of that. Thanks again! Hers fold  (t/a/c) 05:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know if it's good that I've been publicly branded a "stalker" going into the elections period, but thanks for the message. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Was that a declaration? Have you filed with the Federal Elections Commission?  (Speaking of talk page stalking... I probably have it watchlisted from the brief halcyon days of WP:WPPP.)  Neutron (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That should get going again, although a couple of the more active editors in the area are no longer available. :( Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that project accomplished quite a bit in its brief active existence -- although in reality it was just three or four editors besides me writing and expanding articles when we could, without nearly as much coordination as goes on in many other Wikiprojects. As I recall, part of the inspiration came from you, when you lamented the absence of articles on a couple of basic motions.  I also recall (though this may have been before the Wikiproject was formally started) that as soon as the first few redlinks had been turned into stub articles, someone posted a mass AfD (for those and the few previously existing parliamentary procedure articles) on the grounds that the articles were little more than dictionary definitions -- which in some cases was true, as we hadn't finished expanding them beyond stubs yet!  What we have at this point is pretty good, in my opinion.  We probably have about 80 percent of the total coverage that we probably should have -- or, if you believe (as some did, but not me) that we should have detailed coverage of all of the minor parliamentary authorities, maybe more like 50 percent, but still pretty good.  We have good (not perfect) coverage of Robert's Rules and The Standard Code, which I think together account for something like 75-85 of the non-legislative organizations in the United States.  I am not sure how much more of what is in those books we could put in without getting into certain issues that are (ahem) currently being discussed at length on other pages in Wikipedia (well actually, this page too, indirectly) .  We have a little bit of coverage of parliamentary procedure in Canada but almost none for the UK or other countries, and I personally have no knowledge or materials on any of that, and there is very little online (for free, at least.)  One thing that would greatly improve our coverage of U.S. parliamentary procedure, and would allow us to do some expansion into the corresponding motions and rules in other countries, would be if someone had access to the several magazines for professional parliamentarians, where they have articles that discuss some of the nuances of the motions, examples, etc.  When I tried to find those online I found that most of the stuff that would count as reliable sources is either not there at all or requires membership and/or a fee, and I didn't want to go that far.  There are some comments on web sites of various parliamentarians, but that gets into a grey area as far as RS is concerned.  I still do some editing on the parliamentary procedure articles when I think of something or notice that something has gotten out of whack (I have them all watchlisted), but as I said in one of my last comments on the project's talk page (about a year ago), I do not need a Wikiproject to coordinate with myself.  :)    But obviously if anybody wants to jump in and work on these articles, with or without the coordination of the Wikiproject, that would be great.  A new edition of Robert's Rules is due sometime in 2011, so at that point we will need to update some of the articles.  I might even spring for a copy, even though I currently don't really need it otherwise.  Neutron (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Compare and contrast
Rlevse and ChrisO William M. Connolley (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Compared and contrasted. Next request? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment on the kids-glove approach that arbcomm members are taking to Rlevse (really, he is gone, we don't need to comment on his behaviour, do we?) as opposed to the screw-him-into-the-ground method used on ChrisO. William M. Connolley (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See my votes on the ChrisO proposals on the proposed decision, and the extensive criticism I took for it on the talkpage. I believe you will find my approach generally consistent in the two instances. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 11.6 William M. Connolley (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's unfair to point to that one paragraph without acknowledging everything else I said and voted in the case. But with respect to that paragraph:
 * I sometimes find that in the late stage of voting on a case, the majority of my colleagues are viewing an issue differently from how I am viewing it. That was the situation here. My view was that we need not necessarily take any action; among my colleagues, some wanted to take action A, and the others wanted to take more serious action B. At that point, my (more generally, the dissenter's) options are either to oppose both actions, which leaves me without any input in the choice between A and B, or to offer qualified support for the option I find more proportionate. Hence my comment in voting: "Since the majority believes that a sanction should be voted against ChrisO, and this one is proportionate with the sanctions against some other editors, I will support it." (Emphasis added.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This sounds specious to me. If you'd wanted to vote against 11.6, you should have done so. On none of 11.1-11.6 would you switching your vote have affected the result, and since we know arbs don't make backroom deals over vote trading, your vote wouldn't have affected the other votes William M. Connolley (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you disagree with my vote on that paragraph. All I can do is use my best judgment. I'm not quite clear why you have chosen to take this issue up with me, who probably agreed with your apparent view on the ChrisO matter more than any other arbitrator who sat on the case, as opposed to one of the many who disagreed with your views completely; but I also suppose it doesn't matter much. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * WMC, in what way are you not violating your topic ban right now in this conversation? It is most unhealthy to continue litigating this dispute.  Your chance to litigate is concluded and now you need to live with the result, hopefully by honoring the letter and the spirit of your topic restriction.  It's one thing to appeal your own restriction or ask for a clarification, and quite something else to carry on a climate change dispute on behalf of ChrisO. Jehochman Talk 18:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well clearly I'm not, because NYB would have refused to engage in discussion if I was. NYB doesn't need you to hold his hand, and it is rather bad faith for you to describe this as "litigating" William M. Connolley (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I brought this up on the Arb clarifications page and none of the arbs deigned to provide an answer. It would seem pretty damn perverse for ArbCom to prevent editors from discussing ArbCom actions, no matter what restrictions are on editors about some topic. The focus of WMC's attention is on Newyorkbrad's actions, not the actions of someone else, but certainly WMC should be able to bring up ChrisO's actions if that helps to further discussion of Brad's. And with ArbCom elections coming up, it's important to air concerns about the actions of those running for election. In practical terms, it's better to allow WMC, me or anyone else involved in the case to bring up arbitrators' actions in this case: ArbCom would look horrible to everybody else if it isn't allowed, and real elections depend on freedom of speech, otherwise they won't be trusted. Will this extend the climate-change infighting a bit longer? Probably. But it's no big deal and that doesn't outweigh the greater good of open discussion about ArbCom. I'd be interested to hear from others on this, because if Jehochman's view is widely held, I or somebody else needs to go back to the ArbCom clarifications page and get this cleared up. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm ready to block you or WMC if either of you persists in carrying on the climate change battle. It is transparently obvious what both of you are doing.  It's called WP:BATTLE and WP:GAME.  It's dull and unoriginal.  Please, be creative, original or exciting, or productive.  Jehochman Talk 23:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm... for a refreshing change of pace we've got JWB and WMC agreeing with each other and now you're citing WP:BATTLE? That doesn't add up. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing out the absurdity of Jehochman's position, Boris. No doubt, after Jehochman reads this comment, I'll be blocked for "carrying on the climate change battle". I guess I need to get official ArbCom approval to criticise ArbCom. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no authority to unilaterally define the scope of the topic bans, but I'd prefer that no one be sanctioned for comments made or questions asked on my talkpage, at least as long as the discussion doesn't veer utterly out of control. (Of course, what constitutes utterly out of control may be in the eye of the beholder.)

As for topic-banned editors' commenting on arbitrators or an arbitration decision in the context of the election, I will step aside and leave that for others to address, inasmuch as (I might as well come out and say it) I plan to be a candidate for reelection. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This really would be a lot more fun if I could find it within myself to oppose your re-election. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

WT:ACN edit
Regarding this edit at the ArbCom noticeboard talk page, is it appropriate for a discussion in which three Arbs commented to be removed, rather than allowing it to be archived in the normal way? I realise that the topic is a sensitive one, but surely that doesn't necessitate it not being preserved in the archives? I am not looking to add any comment to the discussion, but I was surprised by the removal of the thread and am concerned about its appropriateness. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I had no role in having this thread removed. However, I believe the rationale for removing it had nothing to do with its sensivity, but that the thread was set up in the wrong place; the argument is that the Arbitration Committee Noticeboard talkpage is for discussion of announcements made on the Arbitration Committee Noticeboard, and here, there was no such corresponding announcement. As such, I presume that the thread may be moved or archived somewhere else. If you wish to pursue the matter, I suppose that you could ask the person who removed it where that might be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not think you had organised the removal of the thread, but you were one of the arbitrators who had commented in the thread. I had thought that you might choose to simply restore the thread, or even manually archive it; archiving it somewhere else, where the original discussion was not held, seems absurd to me - it is a recipe for ensuring it cannot be found.  Removal of a thread on the grounds that there was no corresponding ACN annoucement might be justifiable just after a thread starts, but invoking it as a reason after the discussion has come to an end strikes me as post hoc rationalisation.  Only an arbitrator can reverse what has been done and make it stick; we are talking about a page under direct control of ArbCom.  If you think the removal without archiving was inappropriate, then please reverse it.  If you think it was appropriate, well, I disagree with you - but then, the world would be boring if everyone agreed all the time.  EdChem (talk) 11:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It may have been ... non-optimal. I believe it's being archived now to the appropriate talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Two things: Yes, ArbCom does control that page, and this has been enshrined in practice for years now. More importantly, it was already archived well before you began this thread: NW ( Talk ) 14:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad it has been appropriately archived. That was not done at the time it was removed (I checked shortly after it was done), and I did not notice that AGK had since added it to the archive - otherwise I would not have posted here.  I think the original removal made it clear that no archiving was intended, and I found that concerning and inappropriate, though I accept it was well-intentioned.  Anyway, NYB, thanks for advising it was being archived; NW, thanks for providing the link.  EdChem (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You mentioned a sincere request
Hi Newyorkbrad

You mentioned a sincere request to developers as a means to regain an old account. Could you please give me the detials of who to approach? I find I cannot vote in the elections and all sorts of other hassles that I did not anticipate in my hasty scrambling of my password. Thanks Polargeo (talk) 10:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't actually know just whom to approach (there's been some turnover) but I will try to find out. Alternatively, perhaps one of the readers here may know. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that in the past, Brion VIBBER or Tim Starling handled requests like these. I am not sure how active they are these days, so you might want to try asking Werdna, who is usually a bit more active onwiki. NW ( Talk ) 14:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I will do so if you think that prudent Polargeo (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a logical starting point to me. You can point them to my comment on the BN thread if it would be helpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Matty the damned
It seems there is already a thread on his talkpage about his abusive behaviour started by iridescent see User talk:Matty the Damned, therefore he has already been warned. I will withdraw from this confrontation as requested. Polargeo (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for amendment
You note that there are examples on the page, but would you please point to a few of them for clarity? Some denoted guidance on the "common sense" would be helpful here, I think. - jc37 00:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Kirill's comment in the clarification about topic-banned editors' commenting on the candidates in the ArbCom election made a great deal of sense to me; although it doesn't directly apply to commenting in an RfA, its spirit of balancing is correct. There were some other comments that had been made along similar lines when I posted, but at this point I expect they are archives on various pages around the wiki. Most recently, Carcharoth has made a comment below mine which I generally agree with.
 * As one of the arbitrators who participated in the climate change case, I would not like to see anyone sanctioned for any comments they may make or questions they may ask regarding my comments and votes in that case (as long as things stay even remotely civilized, but as I said above, what constitutes remotely civilized may be in the eye of the beholder). However, as a candidate, I'm not going to be participating in discussions of what is or isn't allowed, so my comment here is really all the input I will be able to have. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

?
Where were you? lol  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  06:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked carefully at the situation and there wasn't anything more to be said that hadn't already been said. You may have noticed that things have unfolded so far exactly as I predicted they would. If the problem resumes later, please let me know. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions/comments from Ncmvocalist and responses from Newyorkbrad
I'm aware that I still haven't responded to your invitation about addressing the (procedure, red tape, peer pressure) issue I'd alluded to a while back, but I've put it on hold. In the meantime, you did welcome other questions/comments in your election statement, so I'll make a few in this section. If it's not inconvenient for you, I'd like it if you could respond directly under each question/comment. Thank you in advance. Ncmvocalist (talk)

Q1. ''The mailing list existed for arbitrators to discuss matters which are sensitive or private. For example, if an user had to say something which could not be revealed in public, the only way to convey it is through (what should be) private & secure off-wiki communication ('OWC'). However, there have been several occasions where there is no specific 'need' for arbs to use OWC to discuss comments/votes amongst each other (in fact, such comments/votes could have been made on-wiki).'' Which parts of this statement are incorrect (if any) and why? Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OWC
 * I have no objection to questions here, although bear in mind that asking them on the official questions page will make the questions and answers more visible to the voters. (For once we can readily say "voters" instead of "!voters.") I'll answer this one later today. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Emulating SirFozzie, I think I will utilize the talkpage of my official questions page for any "unofficial" questions. This will keep discussion in one place, prevent it from being archived off this talkpage before the election is over, and make it possible for more voters to see the questions and answers. If you'd be kind enough to post this and your other questions over there, I'll be pleased to respond to them. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Please note that I will have follow up (and other) questions which I haven't put forward yet; I'll leave a note here when I have nothing further to add to my set. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom election questions from Rschen7754
Due to the changed format of this year's election questioning, I have removed all the questions that are covered by the general election questions (but please be sure to answer those thoroughly!) If you wouldn't mind answering the following brief questions that evaluate areas not covered by the general questions, that would be great!


 * 1) What are your views on a) WP:COMPETENCE  b) WP:NOTTHERAPY?
 * 2) Do a group of editors focusing on a specific style guideline or convention have the ability and/or right to impose on other groups of editors their particular interpretation of the style guideline, or their own standardized convention, even if there is significant opposition?

Thank you. Rschen7754 07:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment to Ncmvocalist just above. I'll be pleased to answer your questions, but would prefer to do it where all the voters (not just my TPWs) can read them. Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for Brews
Hello,

If you have time, could you take a look at my proposal about Brews on the Amendment page. Brews has let me known that he is willing to be banned from anything other than his userspace. He can then edit on invitation by putting content on his userspace.

This restriction is unambiguous, you can't violate it and wikilawyer that you didn't. Also, it address the main problem about disputes about edits. You wrote that Wikipedia is not for everyone, but I think that we have to be pragmatic. Since all we're doing is building an encyclopedia, any arrangement that works for some editor should be ok. By only thinking in terms of what works for most, we may be excluding certain groups of talented people who can't be made to fit in using the standard remedies (think of e.g. people with autism; I'm not saying that Brews has autism, though), who would actually be able to make good contributions when subjected to remedies that would look unusual or bizarre from the POV of most other editors. Count Iblis (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take a close look at this, although I can't promise to support it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the elections
Dear Newyorkbrad, thank you for nominating yourself as a candidate in the 2010 Arbitration Committee elections. On behalf of the coordinators, allow me to welcome you to the election and make a few suggestions to help you get set up. By now, you ought to have written your nomination statement, which should be no more than 400 words and declare any alternate or former user accounts you have contributed under (or, in the case of privacy concerns, a declaration that you have disclosed them to the Arbitration Committee). Although there are no fixed guidelines for how to write a statement, note that many candidates treat this as an opportunity, in their own way, to put a cogent case as to why editors should vote for them—highlighting the strengths they would bring to the job, and convincing the community they would cope with the workload and responsibilities of being an arbitrator.

You should at this point have your own questions subpage; feel free to begin answering the questions as you please. Together, the nomination statement and questions subpage should be transcluded to your candidate profile, whose talkpage will serve as the central location for discussion of your candidacy. If you experience any difficulty setting up these pages, please follow the links in the footer below. If you need assistance, on this or any other matter (including objectionable questions or commentary by others on your candidate pages), please notify the coordinators at their talkpage. If you have followed these instructions correctly, congratulations, you are now officially a candidate for the Arbitration Committee. Good luck! Sven Manguard Talk  06:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating yourself again. That's very good news that I have been anxiously waiting for. Hans Adler 09:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Brad, just a quick reminder about the instructions above; your nomination statement should include a categorical declaration about any other accounts you have edited with (i.e. either naming them or if there are privacy/security concerns stating that they have been disclosed to the Committee). I realise this might seem a little pedantic given that you have already been on ArbCom for quite a stretch, but it wouldn't be entirely fair on the other candidates or the voters not to comply. Cheers,  Skomorokh   14:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the reminder. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, appreciate it.  Skomorokh   15:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You haven't done the necessary opt-ins for parts of your edit count figures. Please do so. Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Questions from Lar
Hi. Best of luck in your upcoming trial by fire. As in previous years I have a series of questions I ask candidates. This year there are restrictions on the length and number of questions on the "official" page for questions, restrictions which I do not agree with, but which I will abide by. I nevertheless think my questions are important and relevant (and I am not the only person to think so, in previous years they have drawn favorable comment from many, including in at least one case indepth analysis of candidates answers to them by third parties). You are invited to answer them if you so choose. I suggest that the talk page of your questions page is a good place to put them and I will do so with your acquiescence (for example, SirFozzie's page already has them). Your answers, (or non-answers should you decide not to answer them), that will be a factor in my evaluation of your candidacy. Please let me know as soon as practical what your wish is. Thanks and best of luck. ++Lar: t/c 17:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * PS I see the above, but I prefer explicit permission before posting mine. :) I do applaud your decision though! ++Lar: t/c 17:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) As noted above, the talkpage of my "official" questions page is a sensible place for additional questions such as yours, so please feel free. I can't help noting that your question set includes quite a large number of questions (10 questions with a total of about 30 subparts), so please allow me and the other candidates some time to address everything. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nod. I'm not in a rush, they are not questions that should be given snap answers. But to your point about length, they've been used 3 years running now, with changes to suit circumstances and most candidates managed to get them all answered just fine in the past. SirFozzie already finished his answers. ++Lar: t/c 19:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll answer them soon as well, though not tonight. The point isn't, of course, simply that there are a fair number of questions; it is that you have posed a fair number of some of the deepest and most thought-provoking questions one could have, each calling not for a sentence or two of reply, but a fairly substantive analysis. (My position about BLP, for example, is best represented in the speech I gave at Wikiconference New York last year, which was almost an hour long.) So I look forward to giving your questions the time and effort they deserve, and I promise not to crib from SirFozzie's answers, even though many of them are very good. And I note with approval that unlike many other editors' question sets, Lar's questions go up to eleven. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the new restrictions are there for a reason, allowing as many editors as possible to participate and voters to see a consise Q&A page. I think candidates should give priority to questions asked at the official questions page. - BorisG (talk) 06:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To a certain extent, I suppose I've been more-or-less doing that. But I expect to answer everyone's questions on both pages, though I can't do it at all at once. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Useful context
See User_talk:Barts1a regarding the question you just answered.--Chaser (talk) 03:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I know about Barts1a's thwarted wish to run in the election. But I didn't want to jump to the conclusion that was the sole impetus for his question, and in any case, the question gave me a platform for some things I've wanted to say. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Result of AN/I discussion: Misuse of Nazi images in an essay
The Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion, Misuse of Nazi images in an essay, has been closed. The outcome is as follows: --NicholasTurnbull &#124; (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The result of the discussion was no consensus for unblocking ; therefore, the remaining time of the 1-week block will remain in force.
 * The result of the discussion was no consensus for this user being topic banned from writing essays.
 * The result of the discussion was no consensus for this user being indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia.
 * Thank you for the notification, although as it happened I'd been following the discussion. Hopefully the problem that led me to begin the ANI thread&mdash;something I rarely, if ever, have done before&mdash;will not recur. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Your comment on AE page.
Hello! Although this is an extremely minor matter, I would like to point out that, to my understanding, your recent comment on AE page is grammatically wrong. Specifically, the phrase As one of the arbitrators who participate in the Climate change decision, our expressed concern... is a classic case of a Dangling modifier. You may want to reword it. Also, you may wish to put the word participate in past tense (if I understand its meaning correctly). It is indeed a very minor matter (if not ridiculous) but I found it a bit odd considering your ArbCom status, and went on to read your essays that revealed you as an elloquent writer. Thus I think you might wish to correct. Sorry for bothering you on the matter. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment, which I appreciated. I try to be eloquent, though sometimes I settle for tl;dr instead; and there are a few commenters here and on an external site who have suggested they become physically ill upon reading my posts, so yours is not a universal reaction. :)
 * "Participate" should indeed have been "participated". As for the dangling modifier, perhaps I can convince you that it was a zeugma, maybe a syllepsis? (Or perhaps "zeugma" and "syllepsis" just mean "distracting attention from bad sentence construction by giving it a Latin name.") In any case, I will rephrase my comment. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I am not too well versed in these Latin terms, but something seemed not right (and not intentional. I am not a native speaker of English but I am usually able to spot an intentional pun unless it is based on cultural references I am ignorant about:). On the flipside, this triggerred my interest in your Voloch Conspiracy essays, which I have read in full and throughly enjoyed. I have also read Haynes v. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 8 F.3d 1222 (7th Cir. 1993) which was eye opening on the subject I have been keen to learn about for a long time. So the side effect of a slight irregularity of your comment has had some unintended consequencies:) Thanks a lot. - BorisG (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to drop in and thank you for introducing me to the wonderful word zeugma. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, a very cool word, although it could be mistaken for the name of a certain band. While we're on the subject, we really do need to have clear and specific guidance on how to deal with Scibaby. I'm not going to bring it up now because I know the committee is sick to death of anything related to the case. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'd welcome new ideas on the matter. My own suggestion at one point was that we find out who he is and ask the Foundation to get a court order enjoining him from posting on Wikipedia ever again, on pain of contempt of court and potential imprisonment. This did not go over well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As a legal matter, is there any precedent for something like that? I'm genuinely curious. MastCell Talk 19:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't quite fit this situation, but did you see the recent story about a man jailed for six months for trying to discredit some of his father's scholarly rivals under pseudonyms (this is about a dispute about the Dead Sea Scrolls) . SirFozzie (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * MastCell, my apologies; I didn't notice that you'd asked the question above (you must have posted around the same time someone else posted lower on the page, so when I saw the new messages banner I was drawn to the latter). To respond to your question, I've heard of one instance of such a court order (ironically, I read about it in a draft decision on-wiki in an arbitration case!), but in following up it transpires that the order was ultimately entered on consent, so it's only a limited precedent, really. I still think it is a viable option in an appropriate case, though it might be considered an overreaction to Scibaby. There are other issues associated with this type of approach, pro and con, against bad-faith users who cause exceptionally serious harm to the project and members of the community, but it would probably be better for me not to discuss them on-wiki at this time. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI
I wanted to thank you for your explanation on my talk page. I appreciate you taking the time to explain ti in such a friendly, and helpful way. All the best. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  17:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Identifying to the Foundation (again)
Brad, with the greatest respect, this post of yours, coming from a legal practitioner, is irresponsible. On what is it bases? Hope? An assumption of the Foundation's good faith?

Either of those may be well-founded. But anyone considering Identifying to the Foundation needs to be advised of the risks. The Foundation has wide latitude under their policy to disclose your information. The clause that states that they may disclose "where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation" - gives almost carte blanche. They are under no obligation to resist a subpoena -or to go to the expense of probing it. Granted, they may (and should) chose to do so - but there's no legal onus on them. Indeed handing the name over would surely be justified as protecting the Foundation's property against unnecessary legal costs. As we've been over already, there is also no indemnity for any volunteer, OTRS or arb - so if someone sues you, the Foundation's assistance is not guaranteed. Now, granted my fears may be paranoia, but no attempt is being is being made to alert people to possible risks, and the type of baseless reassurance you've just given leads people to a different conclusion - particularly because you are a lawyer. There are too many people playing pseudonymous wiki-games and not considering the possible personal consequences of outing or legal liability. I suggest you retract that advice.--Scott Mac 22:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As I have responded to you on WT:AC/N, I'll just repeat the shorthand summary here: there is no indemnification for any editor on Wikipedia, and each of us as individuals is responsible for everything we post here. Every editor holds the same liability and is personally responsible for their own personal level of risk. (There's not much risk in writing about an Etruscan vase, as compared to someone who has a long history of initiating civil proceedings.) Frankly, your argument that people aren't being "alerted" to the risks of being an arbitrator are rather far-fetched; anyone considering a candidacy should be asking a past or current arbitrator about the position, its risks and its benefits. Risker (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's misleading. Any editor is, of course, responsible for their own edits. However, those doing OTRS and Arbcom are FAR more likely to be in contact with disgruntled people (I speak from experience of OTRS), and far more likely to be blamed by that person (rightly or wrongly) as being seen as an agent of Wikipedia. Given the Foundation's immunity, you have all the disadvantages of being perceived as an agent or official, and none of the protections. Further, the risk isn't just that you'll be legitimately sued for a "bad act", it is even that most of us lack the resources to defend ourselves even against a spurious one. Maybe it is unrealistic to expect the Foundation to indemnify those who identify to it for any good-faith actions, but people do need to know and consider the risks. I doubt the fact that a serving arb says "well, I've never been sued, would serve as adequate advice or risk assessment."--Scott Mac 22:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I think a couple of different points are being mixed up here. The first is whether the Office staff who are entrusted with verifying id's can be trusted not to leak the information gratuitously. On this, I am confident that the answer is yes; I suppose that others can disagree, though I don't know that you are doing so.

The second question, which I think is the nub of your (Scott's) concern, is whether the Foundation would resist a subpoena demanding that the Office turn over an arbitrator's identity. Since there is no precedent on the issue, we don't know the answer to that, but the likely answer is that they would resist a frivolous request but not request a meritorious one; and in any case, even if the Foundation resists, a court might enforce the subpoena anyway. If the Foundation did not resist, or if it resisted but lost, it would have to turn over the arbitrator's (or other functionary's) identification.

But the point I made in my prior post is that even if the arbitrators were not identified, the Foundation would then have to respond to the subpoena by providing checkuser information on the arbitrator. For most of us, including me, though perhaps not for absolutely everyone, that information would enable a reasonably sophisticated lawyer to identify us anyway. Hence, my view is that requiring the identification does not add materially to the odds that an arbitrator can be identified, especially on top of the unfortunate fact that Wikipedia's critics pretty much manage to track down all of us anyway.

Another aspect, which I did not have in mind yesterday but which has been drawn to my attention, is that your concern presumes that the identify documents are kept on file permanently and hence would be at hand when a subpoena came in. I am not sure that this is actually the case.

I will repeat something I've said in the past: personally, I'm not convinced that any aspect of this identification business has much usefulness; if it were up to me, I would probably forget the whole thing. (But it's not my decision and, in fact, it's probably not even the decision of the ArbCom as a whole.) And I also consider the likelihood that the Foundation might provide limited, if any, legal assistance to functionaries who might be sued for the performance of their official duties to be an unsatisfactory situation. All I was saying, in my post of yesterday, was that the requirement of forwarding identification to the Office probably does not increase the risks that already exist.

Lastly, in the spirit of the respect that you evince for me and that I very genuinely reciprocate toward you, I would humbly suggest that querying the basis for my post might best come first and declaring it to be irresponsible could then, if necessary, come second, rather than the other way around.

I hope this clarifies my thoughts on the matter. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In relation to the first part, you haven't really answered the key question in my opinion (that is the part which caught my attention). You seem unconfident about how long the Office keeps these records on file but you are "confident" that "the Office staff who are entrusted with verifying id's can be trusted not to leak the information gratuitously". Why is that - what is being requested from you is the basis for your confidence in the latter? Do you monitor the activities of the Office on a day to day basis? Are you friends with someone who works in that position? Something else? Ultimately, what assumptions (if any) are you making? For example, are you assuming that because you aren't aware of any issues so far, it must be fine? Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I obviously don't monitor the Office every day; I don't think that's a very helpful formulation of your question. I note that you are raising a different aspect of the issue from the one Scott MacDonald has focused on, which is fine, but I still think it's helpful to separate the two.
 * I do have an understanding of how the identifications are handled that increases my confidence that there won't be leaks of information, but it is obviously second-hand information. Perhaps someone directly familiar with the procedures can post on-wiki and help assuage some of the concern that seems to exist. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant periodic basis of any sort, but I guess it didn't come out exactly as intended.
 * I'd also suggest that this was not immediately obvious which is why questions are being asked. And yes, perhaps that would be helpful. Thank you in any case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Brad, I've no particular reason to call the competency or good faith of the WMF office into question. However, your post said "there is no reason to believe that the Office would divulge such information, either intentionally or carelessly". Well, on what basis do you say that? Any organisation may be (indeed will be) careless at times. Do I need to say "Carolyn Doran" to indicate that giving assurances or the WMF's record of carefulness may be more than you are in a position to do? As for your assurance that there's no reason to believe the office would "intentionally" release information, I ask on what basis you are able to do that? The office has (to my knowledge) never publicly said when, and under what conditions, they'd give out information. No one doubts they'd do it if legally required. But the policy (which is the only statement I have to work with) states they are free do to so "where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation" - which one doesn't need to be a lawyer to realise allows a wide degree of latitude. You say it would hand over information if "it lacked grounds to quash the subpoena" - I hardly could expect it to do otherwise. I might also speculate that it might try fairly hard to quash any subpoena - but it would be pure speculation, since the Foundation would be under no duty even to try. I'm not assuming bad faith here, I'm just not assuming anything at all - while the tone of your post seems to offer assurances. I do not think that is responsible - your speculation may be better than mine, but you are offering nothing more than that - and given your position, and the level of trust you deservedly enjoy, people are likely to take your reassurances fairly seriously.

One of the main problems here is the vagaries of the whole thing. Risker apparently has an e-mail stating that only two people see the ID, and the copies are destroyed. I've no reason to doubt that, but where is it stated? Indeed where has the foundation stated the purpose of asking people to identify and what information it will hold, and for what purposes? I've seen people say this is only for age identification, and I've seen people say that because functionaries have access to other people's data (correspondence, checkuser, etc) the Foundation needs to know who they are in order to be able to hold them to account for any breach of the privacy policy. Which is it?

There is a risk in editing Wikipedia. Those who wish to edit anonymously risk that they may be outed by fair means or foul. There is a risk of harassment. There is the risk that when you involve yourself in publishing, that you may be sued (successfully or spuriously). Those risks may be objectively low, and will depend (in part) on how you use Wikipedia. Each user must (as in anything in life) make their own risk assessment. I have done, and I continue to edit (within certain parameters - I don't add material to BLPs and I edit anonymously: neither eliminates the risk, but for me they bring them to a level I'm willing to run). But if people are to make their own assessment, they need information and not hand waving, and not people saying "the Foundation are good folks".

There are different risks associated with OTRS and arbcom. Different in degree rather than kind, admittedly. One could incur higher risks by doing other things - like editing controversial BLPs. However, putting yourself in a place where you are more likely to be targeted, seen as an authority or agent of the Foundaiton (even if you are not), and have contact with some of the most disgruntled people - is going to increase your risks. Again, perhaps not exponentially. Nevertheless, people taking on such tasks ought to consider the risks (even if they dismiss them in the end). Yet nothing much is done to inform people - and when people raise the question they tend to get told they are being melodramatic, without any hard facts to contradict them. Further, there is an addition risk that the Foundation will "carelessly or intentionally" disclose your ID (yes, your identity can be disclosed in other ways, not least through your IP). How high is that risk of Foundation disclosure? I suspect low, but not negligible - but I lack the data on which to make a proper assessment, as I suspect do you. It would be better if the Foundation offered more clarity here. For now, I do not regard the additional risks of arbcom or OTRS (via Foundation disclosure AND, probably more pertinently, otherwise) as ones I am personally willing to run. That is my judgement, and I have no quarrel with those who reach a different one.--Scott Mac 00:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on your second-last sentence, I think you and I are in agreement that the incremental risk to anonymity created by identifying to the Foundation may be less than the inherent risks to anonymity that already exist. That is the main point that I have been trying to make. I agree with you that it would be a good thing if the Office were to make a more definite statement of the procedures that are used, and I agree with you that it might also be a good thing if the nominations page for the election contained a more detailed risk disclosure, although I think the essay by Risker that is linked puts things in good perspective. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * When I started doing OTRS (before ID was required), no one so much as said, "have you considered that you will meet some pretty angry people, who will inevitably see you as an agent of Wikipedia and blame you for for their woes? Do you know that you are not an agent of Wikipedia, and that if someone were to come after you, you'd be pretty much on your own?". It was only when I was asked to identify, that I chatted with a lawyer about risk and liability - and decided that I didn't want to do this any more. You are correct that my risk probably increased mainly be doing OTRS rather than by identifying. However, lacking any clarity from the Foundation, it's hard to say.--Scott Mac 00:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thorny thicket
Thanks for taking the time, NYB. Yes, it would be good to see that attempt to centralise information about sanctions. My immediate interest is for The Signpost's "Arbitration report", which I helped to copy-edit this and last week. This brought home just what a complex thicket it is to locate the right information for the context. Might even help the arbs and the clerks, but would need a dedicated clerk or other editor to maintain, so isn't going to happen without that willingness. As you know, I'm keen to see arbs' workload freed up, so as much peripheral assistance as possible is probably a good aim. Tony  (talk)  07:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me see what I can hunt up in the archives, once I am through the thick of the questioning period. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

arbcom individual question
Just wanted to make sure you hadn't missed my question. You've answered more than 10 other editors but skipped over me. Is it because I smell? :) Good luck with the election... Shooterwalker (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's because I wanted to look up a couple of previous cases to cite in the answer, and I need to set aside some time to do it. I expect to have answered you and all other pending questions (unless a whole new slew comes in) within the next 24 hours or so. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Cites will definitely help. The more detail the better, IMO. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Formatting the election questions page
Brad, the trick to getting the numbering right without creating a wall of text is to leave "empty" lines wherever you like, but to start these lines with #: (which is invisible in display mode) and nothing else. See what I did here, with Loosmark's list, and how it fixed the numbers in display mode? You, too, can become incredibly brilliant programmer! Bishonen | talk 20:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC).
 * Thanks. I actually knew that at some level, so I'm not sure when I had brainlock applying it this time around. It's been a long Thanksgiving Day, but I'll tweak the page for readability later or in the morning. Thanks again for noticing my question and responding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Question concerning Iridescent's comments
Has been left on your candidate's questions talk page (uff) as requested. - BorisG (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for following up. I'll be responding. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Arb
I voted for you, silly goose. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Editing stats - opting in request
Hi Brad. I am writing my own ArbCom Election voting guide. One of the criteria I am reviewing is candidate's activity. Would you consider opting in for this tool, so that we can see your monthly (and yearly) distribution of edits? Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I can do that. Please let me know exactly what I need to do. I see some instructions about creating new pages&mdash;is that it? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, creating such a page should be enough. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've created the page as requested. It may need some tweaking, which I authorize any editor to do. Please let me know if there are any questions. I know, there are too many Wikipedia-space edits and not enough mainspace edits reflected there; as to that, please see my answer to the related question on the elections page. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)