Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Newyorkbrad/Questions

Candidates are advised to answer each of these questions completely but concisely. Candidates may refuse to answer any questions that they do not wish to, with the understanding, however, that not answering a question may be perceived negatively by the community.

Note that disclosure of your account history, pursuant to the ArbCom selection and appointment policy, must be made in your opening statement, and is not an optional question.

General questions

 * 1) Skills and experience:
 * a) What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, do you think you will bring to the committee if elected?
 * Answer: At this point, the most conspicuous thing I bring to the Committee, for better or worse, is the experience of the two terms I've already served as an arbitrator. In addition to that, on-wiki, I've been an editor since 2006 (and have created about 100 articles) and an administrator since 2007. Off-wiki, I've been a commercial litigation attorney in Manhattan for 25 years; that obviously gives me some background in how various forms of dispute resolution do and should work, but I try not to allow it to lead me to treat Wikipedia arbitrations in an unduly legalistic manner.
 * b) What kinds of personal experience have you had with the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes? If applicable, please provide links to Arbitration cases where you have been involved, or offered an uninvolved statement.
 * Answer: Again, in recent years my principal contact with the dispute resolution process has been as a member of the Committee. I've also been asked, as an administrator, to close some contentious RfCs and I've attempted from time to time to help resolve contentious disputes on the noticeboards. (This is as good a time as any to mention that although arbitration is the last step in Wikipedia dispute resolution, that doesn't mean it's the most important step, and certainly it's not the step that the most editors are going to come into contact with. I urge anyone reading this to consider helping out with a case or two on the relatively new Dispute resolution noticeboard or somewhere else on the project.)
 * 1) Strict versus lenient decisions: Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, would you side more with those who support a greater number of bans and desysoppings, or with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions? What factors might generally influence you?
 * Answer: I've been regarded for years as the most lenient arbitrator. That characterization has an element of truth and an element of exaggeration. There are certainly cases in which I've been the only vote not to ban or desysop someone; on the other hand, I've also voted for bans and desysoppings where the circumstances warrant them. Blocks and bans certainly should never be anyone's first resort: we pride ourselves on being "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit"; for a banned user, we become "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit&mdash;except you," and that's not a step we take lightly. On the other hand, it does the project little good to save one problematic editor at the cost of driving five other exasperated editors away, so a judgment call is required in every instance. Similarly with desysoppings; an administrator who makes a good-faith mistake, or even a few of them, may deserve another chance; one who habitually misuses the tools or treats his or her fellow editors poorly should no longer be an administrator.
 * 1) ArbCom Practices:
 * a) ArbCom and policies:
 * i) ArbCom has not historically made or altered Wikipedia policy, and it does not include matters of Wikipedia policy in its scope of responsibilities. Policies, however, often play a role in cases brought before the Committee. Can, and should, the Committee take positions on the appropriateness, effectiveness, or clarity of policies as part of the case resolution process? If so, should ArbCom be allowed to make changes to policy directly, or recommend specific changes to policy as part of the case resolution process? Please give reasons.
 * Answer: The Arbitration Committee is not supposed to make or alter policy, but it is certainly within its rights to call the community's attention to situations in which existing policy is of questionable appropriateness or is unclear. (There have been a couple of instances in which the Committee, as far as I'm aware, has created a new policy, but they are of older vintage at this point.) In a few instances, we have suggested that unclear areas of policy be clarified through community discussion or an RfC, and I don't recall any objection to our doing so. There is no mechanism for the Arbitration Committee as a Committee to make changes to policy pages directly, but each case decision includes a "principles" section, and that portion of the community that focuses on editing and updating policy or guideline pages could do worse than to review the principles we adopt from time to time. In one or two instances, I've edited a policy page to address an issue that was brought to light through an arbitration case, but I did so as an individual editor, not as an arbitrator, and my edits were subject to the ordinary process of review and consensus like anyone else's. Finally, the Arbitration Committee does have a de facto role in defining policy at the "lowest common denominator" level (doing X will get you desysopped or doing Y will get you banned), although I don't believe we should make too many sweeping declarations of that nature, which disregard the unique circumstances of each situation.
 * ii) The "Five Pillars" essay has been mentioned in recent discussions. Ought it be used in committee findings, or is it of explanatory rather than of current direct importance to Wikipedia?
 * Answer: I think it's a good and important essay in defining the goals and aspirations of how what we all are doing here and how this project ought to work. It speaks in generalities, and in addressing specific cases, it will usually be necessary to focus on more specific policy pages (many of which are linked from WP:5P itself).
 * iii) Biographical articles (not limited to BLPs) form a substantial part of conduct issues placed before the committee. Without getting the committee involved in individual content issues, and without directly formulating policy, how should the committee weigh such issues in future principles, findings and decisions?
 * Answer: Throughout my tenure on the project, I've been extremely concerned about how Wikipedia articles can affect the lives and well-being of the living persons who are discussed in them. I won't repeat here what I've written about these issues in various forums both on- and off-wiki. The ArbCom has repeatedly reaffirmed the importance of compliance with the BLP policy, for example by topic-banning editors who repeatedly depart from the high standards that Wikipedia aspires to (albeit regrettably sometimes fail to attain) in this area.
 * b) Article content: ArbCom has historically not made direct content rulings, e.g., how a disputed article should read. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Can, and should, the Committee establish procedures by which the community can achieve binding content dispute resolution in the event of long-term content disputes that the community has been unable to resolve? Please give reasons.
 * Answer: The Committee generally does not establish procedures for resolving content disputes, but in a few instances it has directed that an ad hoc dispute resolution procedure such as a special, well-publicized RfC or poll be convened to decide an intractible content or article-naming dispute where there have been years of disagreement and nothing else has worked. In addition, in decisions, the Committee has also recognized that there comes a point where what started out as a content dispute can become a user-conduct problem. For example, if an article says A and User:X changes it to B and User:Y thinks it should say A again, that is an ordinary content disagreement. But if the issue is discussed by a dozen editors and all but one agree (based on reliable sources, etc.) and reach consensus that it should be A, and User:X still argues for week after week it should be B, at some point it crosses the line into disruptive editing.
 * c) ArbCom and motions:
 * i) What is, in your view, the purpose of an ArbCom motion? Under what circumstances, or for what areas or processes, would the use of a motion be your first choice in handling the situation.
 * Answer: Motions are properly used when a situation arises that calls for formal Arbitration Committee action, but does not require a full case to develop evidence bearing on what the appropriate action would be. Typically, this would occur in situations where the facts and circumstances underlying a request for arbitration are clear-cut and undisputed, or in an emergency situation. A motion may also be in order in the rare circumstances where a dispute involves such a degree of private information that it cannot meaningfully be discussed on-wiki and the Committee is limited to announcing the results of its deliberations.
 * ii) When is it not appropriate to start a motion? If the community has reached consensus on an issue, does ArbCom have the right to overrule that consensus with a motion? If the community is unable to resolve an issue for some time, and there is no active case related to that issue, can ArbCom step in and settle the issue themselves by motion?
 * Answer: When the facts and circumstances of a situation are sharply disputed, and where a substantial amount of private information is not involved, a motion will generally not be the best way of proceeding, unless it is an interim motion (such as a temporary injunction) pending a full case.
 * iii) There were a number of controversial motions this year. Please identify a few motions from 2012 that you believe were appropriate (if any), and a few you believe were inappropriate (if any). Discuss why you have reached the judgements that you did.
 * d) Private information: In light of the mailing list leak:
 * i) Do you believe that the Arbitration Committee should keep records that include non-public information, including checkuser data and the real life identities of users, after whatever case or issue that information originally pertained to had been handled by the committee?
 * Answer: It's necessary for the Committee to keep some records for several years, although of course the infrastructure for keeping them should be as secure as possible. I will confess that technical issues such as mailing-list configurations and file security are not my strong suit. However, the possibility of moving to a more secure and more functional mailing list and arb-wiki system has been desire of the Committee for a long time, and one accentuated since the mailing list hack/leak situation last summer. When Coren and I represented the Committee in a visit to the Wikimedia Foundation last year, and in a more direct and hands-on fashion when Risker visited more recently, this subject was thoroughly discussed. I am hopeful some improvements in this area will be announced in the upcoming weeks or months, but I won't be someone who can take credit for any improvements that are made.
 * ii) If the answer to any part of (a) is yes, how long should the information be kept, how should it be kept, and who should have access to it?
 * Answer: For at least a couple of years; on a secure server (realistically, some will always reside in individual arbitrators' e-mail archives, too); the then-current arbitrators (and as appropriate the then-current checkusers).
 * iii) Currently, much of ArbCom business is handled over email, and in other non-public forums. Do you believe that all ArbCom discussions that do not directly concern private information should take place publicly? If so, how? Why or why not?
 * Answer: A mailing list is necessary for a Committee of 15 people spread around the world to function in anything resembling an efficient fashion. I think that most arbitrators, unless they are inactive or on a wikibreak, check their Wikipedia e-mail at least everyday, whereas there's no guarantee they can check every one of the myriad arbitration pages on-wiki everyday. It's unrealistic that we would never discuss a pending matter on the mailing list, but our key deliberations, where no confidential information is involved, should most often take place on-wiki.
 * iv) What, if anything, did the Arbitration Committee do wrong before, and in response to, the mailing list leak? What did they do right? What would you have done differently?
 * Answer: There really weren't a lot of good options for how we could handle it. Obviously some preliminary speculation that was published concerning which arbitrator's account had supposedly been compromised, which turned out to be incorrect, should not have been posted. Beyond that, the idea of pursuing legal remedies was not seriously entertained (other than as a thought experiment in my head), so the best we could do was to mitigate the damage and to do our best to bolster security going forward. (I still have no way of knowing whether this was a "leak" or a "hack".)
 * v) If your real identity is not already widely known, do you intend to publicly identify yourself if elected?
 * Answer: My real-world identity is widely known, ever since it was unearthed and published on the "Hivemind" site and later on Wikipedia Review, resulting in some rather ridiculous developments at the time. Subsquently, I've dropped any reticence about who I am in the real world and have posted about Wikipedia on The Volokh Conspiracy and been quoted about it in The New York Times both under my real name. I'm glad to report that I have suffered no untoward consequences as a result, though some other administrators have not been so lucky, and I remain committed to the proposition that whether a Wikipedia editor discloses his or her real-world identity should be his or her voluntary choice.
 * vi) To what extent, if any, do Users have the right to see evidence used in Arbitration proceedings? To what extent, if any, do Users have the right to question witness' statements against them?  To what extent, if any, does the Community have a right to see Arbitration evidence and statements?
 * Answer: In ordinary cases, editors who are the subject of proceedings generally have the right to know on what basis sanctions against them are being proposed. This will typically include the statements and evidence of the "witnesses," or at a minimum, the relevant diffs, etc. For that matter, in the ordinary case where private information is not involved, the statements and evidence should generally be published on-wiki. However, I will repeat the caveat I've mentioned somewhere else on this page, to the effect that a couple of times a year, a situation develops that is not best resolved on-wiki, and in those instances, not all of the relevant evidence can be publicized. In the two years I was active on Wikipedia but before I became an arbitrator, I remember two full-fledged arbitration cases that went through the entire case process, lasting for weeks, although it quickly became apparent that the crux of the case was that an editor was suffering from a serious health or stress issue and should not be editing Wikipedia at that time, much less have to deal with the pressure and public spectacle of an arbitration case. Although these situations are rare and we should not jump to the conclusion that this is what is happening, when it becomes clear that such a situation is involved, hosting days or weeks of contentious debate about the situation on one of the world's most visible websites is no longer a responsible thing to do.
 * e) Past Cases The Arbitration Committee has historically held that prior decisions and findings were not binding in any future decisions or findings. While this may have been wise in the early years of Wikipedia, is any avoidance of stare decisis still a valid position? How should former cases/decisions be considered, if at all?
 * Answer: While the Arbitration Committee pages have stated since the Committee was created in 2004 that the Committee will not be bound by "precedent," at the same time ArbCom frequently decides cases by quoting or citing principles that were developed in early cases. This is done not because those principles or the findings and remedies that result fromthem are "binding precedent" or "stare decisis" in some legal sense, but because they are consistent with policy and with editors' expectations. And in deciding whether to sanction an editor who is a party in Case 2, we certainly are free to consider that the same editor was the subject of an adverse finding and was sanctioned or warned in Case 1. (To some extent it's like other parts of the project: the fact that at AfD, Article Alpha was kept or deleted does not constitute a binding precedent that Article VerySimilarToAlpha will be kept or deleted, but it's certainly relevant information that well-informed !voters might consider in their comments.)
 * 1) Division of responsibilities:
 * a) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the WMF? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?
 * Answer: In the most general terms, the Wikimedia Foundation provides broad guidance for how Wikimedia projects such as English Wikipedia should operate, but leaves most governance as well as content issues to the individual project. In the case of En-WP, part of the community's responsibility falls to the Arbitration Committee. The principal area in which the Foundation may need to take on an increased role is in dealing with a very small number of extremely disruptive, and in one or two cases actually dangerous, persons who interfere with the project and threaten the well-being of our contributors. Specific situations are addressed on a case-by-case basis as needed. For reasons that I hope are apparent, I cannot be more specific.
 * b) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the community as a whole? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?
 * Answer: In terms of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee usually takes seriously its mandate to serve as the last step in dispute resolution, meaning that cases come to us because the community's efforts to solve them without us have been unsuccessful. It bears emphasis that for a number of reasons, the percentage of disputes resolved by the Arbitration Committee rather than other means has been consistently declining for the past several years (see my essay here for some statistics and thoughts on this change).
 * 1) Challenges facing the project: Please share your views on the following subjects. In each case, discuss ArbCom's role, if any.
 * a) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with "civil POV pushers"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
 * Answer: "POV pushing," in the sense of seeking to slant our articles in the direction of a particular point of view, violates our fundamental principle of neutrality. The term "civil POV pushing" recognizes that an editor may be guilty (intentionally or otherwise) of non-neutral editing and advocacy even though he or she refrains from personal attacks, abusive language, or other forms of misconduct. The absence of additional misconduct is a good thing, but it does not excuse persistent non-neutral editing, although sometimes it makes it harder for us to know it when we see it. Editors who engage in POV-pushing rather than neutral editing may come to the project in good faith and first need to be counseled and warned, but if they persist, often need to be restricted or sanctions, with the specifics of the restriction or sanction often dependent on whether the editor is capable of editing properly, or on other topics than the one on which he or she is misbehaving.
 * b) "Factionalism" has been seen by some as a problem on Wikipedia (many different names for such factions have been given in the past). Do you believe that factionalism is a problem? Should committee decisions be affected by evidence of factionalism, in a case or around an article or articles? If the committee makes a finding that "factions" exist as part of a conduct issue, how should factionalism be treated in the remedies to the case?
 * Answer (copied from my 2010 answers when this was one of Lar's questions) : First of all, for someone reading here who doesn't click the links, it should be noted that WP:FACTION is a redirect to Tag team. I hadn't encountered that shortcut before coming to this question set, and had expected the link to be to an essay about nationalist and similar disputes or something of that nature, rather than this. As for tag-teaming, I think it is a problem in some instances, but as the essay points out, it often is quite possible that two or more editors have the same views regarding an issue of article content or policy, and I think that is much more common than tag-teaming of a problematic nature. I think much of the guidance offered in this essay for identifying this problem and dealing with it when it occurs seems reasonable.
 * c) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with editor retention? Does Wikipedia have an overall shortage of editors? Do specific parts or tasks have shortages of editors?
 * Answer: The turnover of editors, in the sense of good editors leaving the project for whatever reason, has been a constant source of concern to me since I became active in the project. For anyone who doubts that we have high turnover, all you need to do is (for example) to pick a random RfA from a couple oof years ago and you'll find yourself saying to yourself, "gee, I haven't seen that user's name around in awhile" more often than you'd expect. Some of the turnover, and some of the overall decrease in the number of editors that we've had recently, is understandable&mdash;people develop other interests, they get bored, they realize they've done the work they came here to do, and so on, plus the project's novelty factor has worn off&mdash;but I am saddened when I see editors driven away by some of the politics and complications and frustrations inherent in trying to create an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. We could certainly use more editors, in virtually every field. However, the Arbitration Committee has only a limited role to play in turning around the trend toward editor loss; the main contribution the Committee has to make is in deprecating and if necessary penalizing the types of behavior that deter good editors from staying active and involved.
 * 1) Reflection on 2012 cases: Nominate the cases from 2012 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.
 * Answer: Since I'm a sitting arbitrator, my views of the decisions the Committee has issued in 2012 (and prior years since 2008) are best located on the case pages. (In particular, for those who may not be aware, each case has a "proposed decision" subpage on which the arbitrators are able to post comments and explanations along with their votes.) To respond briefly to the question here, I think the GoodDay case was an example of a case that was handled well, in the sense that a decision was reached on a timely basis, without stirring up any unnecessary antagonism beyond what was already inherent in the situation, and which restricted a long-time editor from a particular area in which he was causing difficulties while making it clear what he must and must not do going forward to continue as an editor on the project. By contrast, I think it's pretty well-known by now that I was not a fan of how we handled the Perth case: the proposals to desysop three long-time administrators based on a short-lived move-war incident struck me, as well as most of the community members who reacted on the talkpage, as significantly excessive, and I was glad that some of those proposals were not ultimately adopted.
 * 1) Proposals for change: What changes, if any, in how ArbCom works would you propose as an arbitrator, and how would you work within the Committee towards bringing these changes about?
 * Answer: I would like to make the procedures for arbitration proceedings less complicated and easier to understand. The arbitrators, the clerks, and the arbitration enforcement administrators continuously try to improve the procedures and the templates and the documentation for purposes of transparency and clarity, but almost always the net result is greater complexity. I've lived more of my wikilife on the arbitration pages than anyone else should ever dream of, and offline I've been a lawyer for 25 years&mdash;and there are questions about the Committee's procedures that I'm not sure I know the answer to! If that's the situation for me, I can only imagine how everyone else must feel. One small step in the right direction was taken recently, when we combined Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarifications and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendments into Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendments, because too much time was being spent figuring out whether a given request was for a clarification or for an amendment, etc. A second change is&mdash;and this is a perennial promise by every candidate in every election&mdash;is to reduce the amount of time it takes us to decide a case. A third might be to convene some discussion, both internal and with the community, on what types of cases we should be accepting (in terms of the amount of prior DR we require), as per my "blog" post that I linked to above.

Individual questions
Please ask your individual questions here. While there is no limit on the number of questions that may be asked, please try to keep questions relevant. Try to be as clear and concise as possible, and avoid duplicating questions that have already been asked.

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

Questions from Rschen7754
I use the answers to these questions to write my election guide. In past years, I have gone strictly based on points, as I was not familiar with candidates; that is no longer true. This year, I reserve the right to deviate from this past practice, but missing answers will still be noted. Also, I may be asking about specific things outside the scope of ArbCom; your answers would be appreciated regardless.

The questions are similar to those I asked in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011; if you've already answered them, feel free to borrow from those, but make sure the question has not been reworded.


 * 1) What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping?
 * A: Much longer than optimal. Ideally, a relatively straightforward case like that could be resolved within a couple of weeks. (I hasten to add that the delay was not the fault of the drafting arbitrator in the case; there were factors that led to the delay in that case, including a mid-case change of drafter, and I have to admit there have also been times I've been tardy with a decision myself.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) What is the purpose of a WikiProject?
 * A: The basic role is to coordinate and encourage high-quality editing in a particular topic-area. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with "vested contributors"? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
 * A: I dislike the term "vested contributors" and try not to use it, partly because it is somewhat ambiguous. But I think what you are driving at with the question is whether certain editors, by reason of their good work and history of contributions, should be exempt from the norms of user conduct that apply to everyone else. The answer to that is that everyone should be governed by the same rules (with obviously exceptions such as the slack given to good-faith newbies), but that in deciding how to sanction a given editor for poor conduct, it is inevitable that some consideration will be given to the overall contribution that he or she has made to the project. (This doesn't just apply to ArbCom sanctions; it's equally true in AN community-ban discussions and elsewhere).
 * 1) Under what circumstances would you resign from the Committee, if elected?
 * A: If my real-world time commitments became such that I didn't have adequate time to devote to my work as an arbitrator. Based on my current personal and professional circumstances, I don't see any reason to believe that will happen in the next two years. One of the voter guides pointed out that I left something out: I'd also resign if I had reason to believe that the community had lost its faith in my integrity or good judgment (that doesn't mean disagreeing with my votes in a particular case or two, however).
 * 1) a) Do you believe that "it takes two to tango" in some circumstances? In every circumstance? b) Would you consider mitigating the sanctions on one user given the actions of another? Eliminating them entirely?
 * A: In my experience, some disputes (in arbitration or on ANI or elsewhere) involve poor behavior by more than one user. Others involve poor behavior by only one user. Some involve very poor behavior primarily by one user, with instances of other, generally well-behaved users occasionally lashing out in frustration at the first user. It's a platitude that "every case has to be considered on its own merits," but that's really the only answer to this question.
 * 1) ZOMG ADMIN ABUSE!!!!!!! a) How do you determine if abuse of the tools actually took place? Is there the possibility of a "gray area" in the interpretation of the policies? b) When do you believe that it is appropriate for ArbCom to act on a case of admin abuse, without having the scenario brought to ArbCom by another editor?
 * A: (a) I would define "abuse of the tools" as their use, intentionally or repeatedly, in a fashion contrary to the relevant policies or to the best interests of the project. There are certainly plenty of gray areas in the English Wikipedia's (voluminous and sometimes overly complicated) policies, and an administrator (or other editor) who in good faith relies on a plausible reading of policy in taking a given action generally should not be sanctioned for that action. (b) The Arbitration Committee usually will act on "a case of admin abuse" on its own, without waiting for a case, in the event of a perceived emergency. "Deleting the main page" is the canonical example, but of course there are others. In general, when an administrator is wildly misbehaving, the issues will be brought to the Committee's attention by more than one person, although depending on the nature of the misbehavior, this may sometimes happen by e-mail or other informal means rather than through the time-consuming process of filing an arbitration case.
 * 1) What is the relationship of the English Wikipedia (enwp) ArbCom to other Wikimedia sites? Specifically, a) Does the enwp ArbCom have jurisdiction over what happens on other sites, and/or can those actions affect the user on enwp? b) Is public evidence on other WMF sites valid in arbitration proceedings? Admin-only or private evidence?
 * A: The principles governing the Arbitration Committee's attitude toward material posted on other sites (both other Wikimedia sites and non-WMF sites) are set forth in a principle that I have drafted and refined over the years. Ordinarily, what an editor writes on some other site is not subject to sanction on English Wikipedia, either by the Arbitration Committee or by the community. We do not usually sanction editors on English Wikipedia for what they might write on French Wikipedia or Commons or Meta-Wiki, or on Wikipedia Review or Wikipediocracy or in their blogs or wherever. However, in extreme circumstances, an individual's postings on another website may reach the level of directly affecting the editing environment on our project, and in those cases it may be necessary to impose sanctions. Such extreme circumstances might consist of extreme harassment, threats, or statements of intent to violate Wikipedia policies.
 * 1) What are your thoughts as to what happened to Mat Honan, since you are applying to be an arbitrator, one of the most visible positions on one of the top 10 sites on the Internet?
 * A: Obviously this is an appalling story. My real-world identity has been publicly known since April 2008, when it was uncovered and published on Wikipedia Review, resulting in some rather ridiculous developments at the time. Subsquently, I've dropped any reticence about who I am in the real world and have posted about Wikipedia on The Volokh Conspiracy and been quoted about it in The New York Times both under my real name. I'm glad to report that I have suffered no untoward consequences as a result, though some other administrators have not been so lucky, and I remain committed to the proposition that whether a Wikipedia editor discloses his or her real-world identity should be his or her voluntary choice. As for Internet security, all arbitrators were counseled to monitor their level of online security following last year's mailing list hack or leak, and I have taken reasonable measures in that regard.
 * 1) If elected to ArbCom, do you plan on being active for the majority of your term?
 * A: Yes.

Thank you. Rschen7754 00:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Additional question: since you've written a blog post about case acceptance, what are your thoughts on the matter? --Rschen7754 22:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Answer: Based on my accumulated experiences, my basic thoughts on when the Committee should accept a case are these:
 * When a request for arbitration involves a long-term dispute or problem that the community has not been able to resolve, and which an arbitration decision could resolve, the case should usually be accepted. Hearing and resolving this type of dispute is the fundamental reason the Arbitration Committee exists.
 * When a request involves an isolated incident, then the Committee should be wary of accepting a case unless the incident was extremely serious or is part of a pattern of behavior. Accepting such a case runs the risk that an incident that would otherwise have been forgotten within a few days will instead become of the focus of a lengthy proceeding that will compound whatever ill-will existed at the time. I am not saying that such a case should never be accepted, just that the arbitrators should be mindful of both the positive and negative consequences of accepting it.
 * A request for arbitration should be declined in favor of pursuing other dispute-resolution paths within the community where there appears to be a reasonable likelihood that the other DR method will actually resolve the dispute (or perhaps where the other DR will create additional evidence relevant to resolving the dispute). However, there is no point to requiring additional DR steps short of arbitration where it is obvious that no progress will be made simply as a procedural requirement. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions from Scott Mac

 * 1) Why? I mean, if it weren't so personal, I'd ask if you have a life, but I'll settle for: why?--Scott Mac 22:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Answer: I could turn the question around on you if I wanted: I think you've had far more moments of anger and unhappiness on the project than I have, and you've walked away any number of times, but here you are. What are you doing here?
 * But since I'm the candidate and you're the questioner: I have a very full and happy life, both professionally and personally. If you check my contributions, you'll find that I'm not someone who spends 10 hours a day on Wikipedia (which is not meant as a slight at those who spend more time than I do). The time commitment that arbitrators make is a significant one, but it shouldn't be exaggerated: I expect there are hundreds or thousands of well-rounded Wikipedians who spend as much time editing Wikipedia as I do. I value this project and enjoy participating in it, and I think I have added value to it in the role of arbitrator, and I have also helped to solve a certain percentage of the project's disputes. (Actually, some of my best work has been in defusing drama behind the scenes and doesn't show up in anything you would see on-wiki.)
 * All that being said, as I said in my candidate statement, I was hesitant to run again precisely because I've done this job since 2008 and it is important to have turnover on the Committee; but it is important to balance that with some continuity and experience too, and I'm running to give the community another option in doing that.
 * I'll add that I've made a commitment to myself and everyone else that whether I'm reelected or not I'm going to do more mainspace work in the next two years; I don't know whether you'll read that as "good for him, he'll have a more well-rounded Wikipedia experience," or "geepers, now he's promising to have even less of a life." Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Question from User:Casliber

 * I've written some notes here on arbitration. My question is about the next time the committee gets a complex dispute such as Abortion or Climate Change, where arguments extend to misuse of sources as well as problematic behaviour. Do you see the role as strictly examining problematic behaviour or do you see the need to examine how antagonists are working within our content policies. If you don't see a role of examining how contributors are abiding by our content policies, how do you propose they do get examined? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Answer: Your "notes" are thoughtful and insightful, and I agree with the key points you make. The general rule, as you know, is that the Arbitration Committee does not resolve good-faith content disputes among editors. This is partly because the community has not entrusted us with such a role, and partly because for many if not most topic-areas of a wide-ranging all-subjects global encyclopedia, we don't individually or collectively have the expertise to fulfill it. That does not mean, however, that we cannot and do not examine user misconduct, even when that misconduct takes the form of article edits. See for example my answer to general question 3(b) above.
 * Arbitration decisions that I have drafted have emphasized some of the project's core principles for responsible editing, and have imposed sanctions against editors who have flagrantly violated those principles. In some instances, I've written new principles language that I believe encapsulated current policy but set standards by which ArbCom could evaluate compliance with policy without taking ownership of article content. For example:
 * The contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly. By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor represents that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes the contents and meaning of the original source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context. (from Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance)
 * While all articles must be neutral, the nature of an article is often relevant to how extensively non-majority views should be discussed. For example, a minority or fringe view about a given subject might properly receive little weight in the main article on the subject but, if the view is notable, may receive greater attention in an article on the minority or fringe view itself. Even in the latter article, however, the degree of scholarly acceptance of the non-majority view should not be overstated. (from Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question)
 * It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors. However, an editor's continuing to edit or threaten to edit against a clear consensus—after appropriate discussion, warnings, and the use of applicable dispute resolution methods—may cross the line into disruptive editing that constitutes a conduct (rather than exclusively content) issue and may be grounds for sanctions. (from Arbitration/Requests/Case/Henri Coanda).
 * It is entirely legitimate for the Arbitration Committee to evaluate disputed editing, not based upon our evaluation of content disputes per se, but measured by neutral principles such as these.

Question from The Devil's Advocate

 * 1) How would you determine if these has been POV-pushing?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 03:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A: Evidence could include: specific diffs of slanted or non-neutral edits; edits in a topic-area uniformly stressing a particular point of view; selective use of biased sources; citations where the source doesn't actually say what it's being cited for or the cited material is being taken out of context; excessive weight given to minority views or fringe theories, especially if they aren't designated as such; or the cumulative weight of several or all of these things. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions from Boing! said Zebedee

 * 1) Looking at the attitudes of Wikipedia contributors towards the management of the project, I see a rough spectrum from what I would call "Community" at one end to "Authority" at the other - some are more inclined to lengthy consensus-seeking while others prefer the quick exercise of authority. There are strengths and weakness to both approaches, and I think the optimum position is somewhere in between - though I'm an advocate of a position near the "Community" end. There's also a related issue, the "rules". Some contributors see the rules as being there to serve the community, while others appear to see the community as being there to serve the rules. I strongly favour the former, and I see the "rules" as closer to being guidelines that should be intelligently applied to each individual situation (with a few obvious "bright line" rules that need to be applied unconditionally). But I see many people (including many admins) who apply rules firmly and unconditionally. How would your approach to the issues of authority and the rules manifest itself in your ArbCom actions?
 * A: I think to a certain extent it depends on what type of issue or situation is involved. I don't think there would be much enthusiasm for a Wikipedia in which the Arbitration Committee (or administrators more generally) could do more-or-less what they wanted to and cite their "Authority" as the reason. In many situations, community discussion and community decision-making are the best way of resolving an issue&mdash;although we continue to strive for ways in which the most complex community discussions can be organized and conducted more fairly and efficiently and reasonably, as opposed to the free-for-alls we sometimes see on ANI. On the other hand, sometimes an issue arises where the ArbCom needs to act decisively on the basis of non-public information, and a complete on-wiki explanation cannot appropriately be given. The instances are rare (maybe between two and five a year), but they do occur, and the selection criteria in this election could reasonably include "is this one of the users I would trust to make these types of sensitive decisions?"
 * As for rules and guidelines, we have a lot of rules&mdash;at times probably too many rules&mdash;but the rules always have to be applied with common sense. As an almost random example, if "User:CityX Large Library Reference Desk" registers tomorrow and started adding links to the library's collections to articles, the proper response is a welcome message and outreach to a potentially valuable user&mdash;not a block for "spamming and self-promotion and bad username and operating a role account," even though one could cobble together snippets from the rules that theoretically could justify the latter. WP:IAR is an integral part of the rule set, although it should not be routinely invoked; it's a good thing that page was written a long time ago, as such a policy could never be adopted today. What matters are the encyclopedia, and the community that creates and maintains the encyclopedia, and the readers who read and rely on the encyclopedia. The rules and the governance aspects and the whole "back office" apparatus are interesting in their own right, but they are ancillary to the project; they don't define the project or why we all are here.
 * 1) What does "Civility" mean to you?
 * A: When Arbitration Committee decisions used to be written more succinctly than they sometimes are now, the baseline "civility" principle simply read: "Editors are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other." Although we all can argue (and have argued) about how much deviation from this baseline expectation is acceptable, and where exactly we draw the line between challenging another editor's arguments and personally attacking the editor, I don't think it's ever been said better than that. Another useful formulation is contained in an essay by one of my ArbCom colleagues, User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions from AlexandrDmitri

 * 1) How should the committee handle extended absence (>3 months) by one of its members?
 * A: The first step is to find out the reason for the absence and whether it's going to end at some reasonable point. If the inactive arbitrator advises that he or she has had a medical issue or some other specific reason for absence that will soon be ending, it might not be necessary to do anything. If the absence is going to continue indefinitely or the arbitrator doesn't respond to attempts to communicate with him or her, then it might become appropriate at some point to declare a vacancy, especially if there is an election upcoming at which the vacancy can be filled. However, one of the reasons the Committee has 15 members, which is probably a larger number than absolutely necessary, is so that it can function with one or two inactive members, arbitrators on wikibreak, etc. Also, the number of long-term absences will probably be less since the term length has been reduced from three years to two years.
 * 1) Incoming mail, Case management, Ban Appeals support, Higher permissions or Technical team: these were the initial internal teams set up by the Arbitration Committee (and I note you were on the Case management team). Whilst this division has now evolved, which part of in the internal operations of the committee do you feel you could bring expertise to, and why?
 * A: As you note, I signed up for "case management" as my primary role. As for the other roles: I've spent a few months on the Ban Appeals Subcommittee and have also weighed in on other ban appeals (which are circulated to the full Committee) when I've had something to add. I haven't administered the higher permissions processes (Risker has done the lion's share of that work, with assistance from others such as Xeno), but I've reviewed and commented on the candidates before each round of Checkuser/Oversight appointments. I haven't taken on an administrative role on the mailing list (again, Risker's done much of the coordination), but I probably respond to about an average amount of the incoming mail. As for the "technical team," Sam Goldwyn (or some say it was Yogi Berra) put it best: please include me out.

Questions from User:Hestiaea
1. Moral conundrum. You discover that a fellow Arbitrator has done something potentially embarrassing for the Committee, possibly even criminal. You are concerned, but the Arbitrator has already stepped down for a different, unrelated reason. A year or two later, he or she stands for election again. You, and a number of other arbitrators, are horrified. Do you (a) persuade the arbitrator to stand down, perhaps implying that you will publicise the affair on-wiki. Or (b) make the matter public, even if it is embarrassing for you, given the Committee did not make the affair public from the very beginning.
 * Answer: Your question strikes me as a thinly veiled interpretation of a specific situation that arose a couple of years ago. No useful purpose would be served by reprising that situation in the current election, which would be an inevitable result of sitting arbitrators' responding in detail to this question. If your position is that your question is an abstract one divorced from any specific actual or alleged historical situation, then the question is also too abstract to respond to, as much would depend on the specific circumstances of the former arbitrator's conduct. Suffice it to say that I would react to any such situation based on my best assessment of the best interests of the project and all of its contributors at the time.

2. Another candidate has (commendably, in my view) come out against lying. Do you think it is ever acceptable to lie, e.g. if the lie is 'for the good of the wiki', or if the lie prevented embarrassment for Wikipedia or the committee? Do you think there should be a 'statute of limitations' on lying? I.e. if you find a Committee member has lied some time ago, do you think it is best to 'let sleeping dogs lie'? If you do, how does that square with Wikipedia's principles on openness and transparency?
 * Answer: This question appears to refer back to the same incident and therefore warrants the same response. In general, I hope it is obvious by this point in my wiki-career that I esteem truthfulness and disdain lying, and I certainly expect high standards of behavior from arbitrators and "functionaries" on the project. I don't, however, think it would be terribly useful to delve into "is it acceptable to tolerate a lie under any circumstances ever?" hypotheticals such as might be discussed in a university philosophy class.

3. Let me rephrase the question so it doesn't look like any real life case. You discover that an arbitrator has acted in a way that would have caused instant removal from the project if he or she had been an 'ordinary editor'. However, the arbitrator has done much good work on the Committee and commands the respect of the community. There are also other arbitrators who strongly support this person. It is also clear that if the actions were ever made public, it would result in serious embarrassment for Wikipedia. So do you (a) go with the status quo and not reveal your concerns or (b) press for resolution of the matter in a way that is open and transparent, even if it could lead to embarrassment for you or for others?
 * Answer: Situation-dependent. I wouldn't support banning "an ordinary editor" from the project for something that had happened several years ago, unless it was something truly outrageous and unforgiveable, so the comparison you are drawing between how we might treat an arbitrator and some other editor doesn't necessarily work. As a general statement, "embarrassment to Wikipedia" (or to any other organization) is sometimes the inevitable consequence of dealing with an issue, but it isn't something to be sought out unnecessarily. Put differently, Wikipedia has plenty of current issues and problems and conundrums that take time to acknowledge and address without seeking out historical ones. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

4. I'm sorry I am going to have to ask this question again, as you seem to have some other case in mind that I wasn't asking about. Suppose an arbitrator has quite recently acted in a way that would have caused instant removal from the project if he or she had been an 'ordinary editor'. However, the arbitrator has done much good work on the Committee and commands the respect of the community. There are also other arbitrators who strongly support this person. It is also clear that if the actions were ever made public, it would result in serious embarrassment for Wikipedia. So do you (a) go with the status quo and not reveal your concerns or (b) press for resolution of the matter in a way that is open and transparent, even if it could lead to embarrassment for you or for others? The question is essentially about whether you are going to be open and transparent, i.e. fessing up, even when it could be embarrassing for the Committee, or whether you cover things up. Sorry to be asking this again, but my research for the book suggests that lying and covering up play a significant role in Wikipedia's history. More than in the history of a corporate concern or an institution run on traditional lines, in my experience. I want to understand whether this is still part of the culture or not. Thank you for being patient, nonetheless. Hestiaea (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Answer: Thanks for repeating the question, as I missed the change in the facts of your hypothetical question between no. 1 and no. 3. However, the basic answer remains the same: the question is a bit too abstract for a response, as so much depends on the specifics of what the hypothetical arbitrator colleague had done and perhaps how and why he had done it. There are circumstances that call for public disclosure of misconduct by any editor, and there are other circumstances that are best dealt with behind the scenes. It would be totally irresponsible for me to say either that "I will do my best to cover up any misconduct by another arbitrator at any time" and it would be equallly irresponsible for me to say "any time a colleague messes up, I will make sure the matter is turned into a public scandal"&mdash;but those seem to be the only two alternatives you are offering. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions from Cunard
''Please do not feel the need to answer all my questions. I've listed the topics that I'm most interested in; see my note below. The other questions can be left unanswered if you don't have the time or inclination to answer all the questions. Cunard (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)''
 * RfC closes
 * 1) Are you aware of Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure? If you are interested in helping the community assess the consensus at RfCs and other discussions, please consider watchlisting it. If not, then no worries.
 * Answer: I'm aware of it and appreciate the efforts of those administrators who are helping out with closures, especially those that are past due. I've done some working with RfC closures (including in a couple of contentious instances when I was specially requested to do so) and will continue to do so, although if I'm reelected to the Committee, arbitration work will continue to require the majority of my Wikipedia-space time since the responsibilities of arbitrating aren't delegable.
 * 1) There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment regarding review of closes of requests for comment. Part of the discussion is about whether admins can summarily overturn non-admin closes of RfCs. Suppose that a non-admin editor in good standing closes an RfC. The non-admin was not involved in the discussion and has not previously expressed an opinion about the topic. An editor disagrees with the close and requests admin review. Should an admin be able to summarily overturn a non-admin RfC close? Arguments for: (i) the safeguard is necessary in case the closer is inexperienced, (ii) having been through an RfA, admins are entrusted by the community to assess the consensus in discussions, and (iii) this would parallel other processes. Deletion process states, "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator." Requested moves/Closing instructions states, "All non-admin closures are subject to review by an admin; but if the conditions listed above are met, the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is not sufficient reason to reverse a closure." Arguments against: (i) admins do not have the exclusive power or special competence to rule on content outside of XfD (which in the case of deletion requires the admin flag), (ii) non-admins who have spent hours reading a discussion and summarizing the consensus should be given more respect, and (iii) summarily overturning closes discourages non-admins from closing RfCs, which will aggravate the perpetually backlogged Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. A large number of the closers at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 4 are non-admins. Should an admin be able to summarily overturn a non-admin RfC close?
 * 2) The second question asked at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment was: "Can an RFC closure be overturned by consensus at WP:AN?" Deletion discussions have the review process Deletion review, and move discussions have the review process Move review. There is currently no formal process for reviewing RfC closes. Recently several RfC closes have been contested. See "So what happens with disputed closes", the closing comment here ("The more complex question that emerged about who can close and/or reopen RfCs does not seem to have been answered but it's my judgement that it's not going to be satisfactorily answered in this forum."), Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 5, and Administrators' noticeboard/Archive240 for several recent examples.  Do you agree or disagree that an RfC can be overturned by community consensus at WP:AN? Describe how you believe an RfC close review should be like in terms of its format: Deletion review, Move review, or something else.
 * Answer: I've posted a few thoughts on this in response to GabeMc's second question below.

Arbitrator wrote, "I would prefer if all Committee discussions were held on Wikipedia, except for those matters which do require privacy." I believe this is a position supported by many members of the community.
 * Transparency
 * 1) Please explain why you agree or disagree with SilkTork's position.
 * 2) If you agree with SilkTork's position, describe how you will actively promote changing the Arbitration Committee's tendency to hold non-privacy-related discussions off-wiki.
 * Answer to this section: Please see my responses to general questions 3(d)(iii) and 3(d)(vi) above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)




 * Recusals
 * 1) In several past cases, arbitrators have been asked to recuse because of prior involvement with one of the parties. See for example User talk:AGK/Archive/75 regarding this case request. See also for example User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 8. Arbitrator  wrote, "I'm uncomfortable with the notion that a Committee member should recuse because someone expressed dissatisfaction with some action they made, particularly when it was over three years ago and didn't lead to any dispute. There is a thought that it wouldn't do any personal harm if I recused, and I can see that, but I don't want to set a precedent that a user can get a Committee member to recuse simply by disagreeing with them." Describe your criteria for recusing when a party request you to recuse.
 * 2) Former arbitrator  has a list of his biases on his user page at User:Cool Hand Luke. Please describe when you will recuse to avoid the appearance of bias. For example, you might be heavily involved in a WikiProject or Wikimedia chapter and decide to recuse when an arbitration case involves one of its members. Or you might recuse if an arbitration case relates to a particular topic area that you have heavily edited.
 * Answer to this section: My practice has been to recuse myself in situations where I believe I might have an actual conflict of interest, where my impartiality in resolving a dispute could reasonably be questioned, or when there are substantial sound reasons that it would be best for a given dispute to be resolved by arbitrators other than myself. This has included situations where I have an extreme personal sensitivity to a dispute given real-life circumstances (e.g. the September 11 case), situations where I have had substantial previous involvement in a dispute as an editor or administration (e.g. the Zeraeph case), or situations in which I have been involved in a persistent series of disputations with a particular user (e.g. unblock/unban requests received from TreasuryTag). I think my practice in this regard has been reasonable.


 * Consensus
 * 1) How would you have closed Articles for deletion/Jill Kelley? If you have a strong opinion about the topic and would have recused from closing the discussion, how would you have voted?
 * Answer: Closing AfDs doesn't have too much to do with being an arbitrator. As an administrator, I haven't specialized in AfD closings, and it's highly unlikely I would close this one. However, if for some reason I had been forced to close it, it would have been "Keep." I fully understand the arguments for deletion, and indeed have probably written more about the intersection between the BLP policy and privacy issues as anyone on the project, but the level of publicity that this person has received is at such a level that whether or not I would personally choose to write or read this article, she doesn't fall within the area where decency-based application of BLP considerations can override an otherwise clear consensus of the AfD !voters.


 * 1) After considering Deletion guidelines for administrators, would you vote to endorse, overturn, or relist the "delete" close at the deletion review Deletion review/Log/2012 November 21?
 * Answer: Most likely a "very reluctant overturn" per above. The alternative would be something like "endorse for now, without prejudice to trying to create a new article in a couple of months," by which point the immediate news pressure might have subsided and a better sense of this individual's long-term notability could be obtained.


 * 1) WP:BLP1E states "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met". The third condition is "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." Discuss how this would factor into your assessment of consensus in an AfD involving a BLP, where BLP1E is cited as an argument for deletion. Feel free to mention the Jill Kelley AfD in your answer or to discuss this generally.
 * 2) The policy Consensus states, "When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted." Deletion review states, "If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed" (though the admin also has the discretion to relist the debate).
 * (a) If "normally" is removed, there would be a conflict between the policy and deletion review practice. Why are admin decisions at XfD not treated equally to other admin actions? Do you agree or disagree with this different treatment?
 * (b) How do you interpret the above policy wording with regard to block and unblock discussions at Administrators' noticeboard?
 * 1) When closing an XfD or RfC, how would the number of votes for a position factor into your decision? Suppose the vote count for a non-policy-based position is significantly higher than for a policy-based position (perhaps 80% vs. 20%). Further suppose that there is substantial participation and that all of the participants are experienced editors in good-standing. Do you close as consensus in favor of the non-policy-based position, consensus in favor of the policy-based position, or no consensus? Feel free to speak generally or to use the the AfD mentioned in #1 if it is applicable.
 * 2) Regarding the previous question: Does the community collectively determine what the policy-based position is through their discussion at the XfD or RfC? Should the closing admin be tasked with determining the policy-based position? Or should there be a balance of the two?
 * 3) Would you have supported or opposed the motion that passed at the BLP deletions case request in January 2010? (You made a comment there but did not express support or opposition to the motion before it was enacted.)

I have asked many questions here. If you are short on time or do not want to answer all the questions, please do not feel that you need to answer all my questions. I am most interested in your answers to and  so please concentrate on those questions, answer other questions on topics that interest you, and skip the rest if you want. Thank you for running to be on the Arbitration Committee. I look forward to your answers to my questions. Best, Cunard (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note and thank you


 * Answer: This is quite an interesting question set, although (as you are aware) not all the questions relate directly to Arbitration Committee issues and responsibilities. I've started responding to these questions and will continue working on them in the next couple of days. Please note that because of the number and generality of the questions, I'm giving somewhat basic answers here, but I'd be open to any more specific follow-up questions you have have. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Question(s) from Risker
With the exception of very limited situations, the Committee renders decisions only on matters at the request of one or more members of the community. Decisions on which the Arbitration Committee holds votes are passed or failed based on majority support. At times, the members of the Committee can be divided on an appropriate course of action, and voting outcomes will sometimes be determined by only one or two votes.

How do you feel about the concept of committee solidarity, i.e. all members of the committee standing by a decision that has been made in accord with committee processes? If you are elected, will you personally be able to publicly uphold the considered decision of the Committee as a whole, even if the position you took did not receive majority support? How would you deal with a situation in which you have a strongly held position that is not supported by the Committee as a whole?

I'll look forward to reading your response. Risker (talk) 08:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Answer: The Arbitration Committee needs to be a collegial body. Mutual respect and candid interaction among Wikipedia participants is at least as important within the Arbitration Committee as in any other area of the project. This has basic implications, such as that arbitrators can be expected (for example) to focus on the strengths and weaknesses of one another's arguments for a particular outcome to a given issue, rather than on comments about one another. This applies to interactions both on the arbitrators' mailing list as well as on-wiki and in any other forum.
 * On the other hand, there's no value to pretending that all our decisions are unanimous, when we have an entire voting page in each case that demonstrates that often we're not. I was asked in one of the general questions above to comment about which 2012 cases I thought the Committee had handled well, and which not so well. By responding with the well-known fact that I had issues with the proposals that had been made in the Perth case, I don't believe I was undercutting solidarity among the Committee. If reelected, I don't plan to stop expressing my views on the merits of each case, whether they do or don't coincide with those of the majority (and sometimes, if I'm among the the first to vote, I won't know whether they will or they won't).
 * On the other hand, one reasonably picks one's spots with this sort of thing. If the Arbitration Committee announces that it has selected Users A, B, C, and D as checkusers, I'm not likely to comment either public or privately that C is a putz who should never have been appointed and that it was unforgiveable we didn't appoint E and F as well.
 * When I have a strong opinion that's contrary to that of other arbitrators, I say so&mdash;either on-wiki or on the mailing list, as appropriate (sometimes both). Sometimes I've persuaded one or more other arbitrators, and other times I haven't. That the Committee obtains input from multiple members, rather than just one or a handful, and from members who come at things from different points of view, is one of the main reasons we have a 15-member Committee.
 * In terms of standing by a decision after it's been issued, neither I nor (as far as I can remember) any other arbitrator has advocated "civil disobedience" in the sense of urging administrators or the community not to abide by a decision. On the other hand, depending on the strengths and weaknesses of the decision as well as later developments, I might urge that it be amended or clarified or that a remedy be terminated, etc. through the appropriate process (amendment, clarification, etc.) at an appropriate time.
 * A related question is whether an arbitrator who votes against the decision in Case One should nonetheless follow the "precedent" established in Case One when a similar case, Case Two, comes along sometime later. Of course, ArbCom cases aren't "precedents" (as discussed in another response above), but with that noted the question still stands. The answer needs to be situation-dependent, and depends (among other things) on how badly flawed a dissenting arbitrator thinks Case One was, and how events on-wiki have unfolded since Case One was settled. There is value to considering each case on its own merit, but also value and fairness in treating similar cases in the same way. In the context of Wikipedia arbitration, as a practical matter, it is usually possible to develop a position in Case Two without seeking to "overrule" Case One.
 * Although I don't like to overuse analogies between Wikipedia arbitration and real-world courts, this particular issue does have a real world parallel. If the U.S. Supreme Court decides a given issue and there are dissenting opinions, and the next year another case comes along building on that decision, should a Justice who dissented in the first case stick with his or her dissenting view, or concede that the new case is controlled by the earlier one and go from there. Many distinguished Justices have offered different answers to that question, and many Justices have not been consistent even in their own practice from one case to another. But I'll save some examples of that for the mainspace articles that I need to get back to writing when this questioning period is over....
 * I hope this is responsive and of interest. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Question from SilkTork
As Wikipedia is global, issues arise on a 24 hour basis, so it can be useful to have Committee members available across several time zones to deal with urgent issues as they arise and reach a consensus, and also to prevent fragmenting the Committee when dealing internally with issues, so that members in isolated time zones do not become detached from discussions mainly taking place in one time zone. Would you mind indicating either in which time zone (UTC +/- 0-12) you are located, and/or those hours UTC (0 - 24) in which you are likely to be available (being aware that some people are active on Wikipedia long into the night, and also that some people may not wish to reveal their precise time zone).  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  14:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Answer: (Consistent with my username) I'm in the United States, Eastern time zone. I'm afraid that whatever my other qualifications might be, I'm not able to run as a "geographic diversity" candidate. My availability at different times of day and night is generally what one might expect from someone in my time zone, though it varies from day to day depending on the demands of real-life at the time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Question from Bazonka
Wikipedia is largely an on-line community, and some editors prefer their activities to remain entirely on-line. However, other Wikipedians engage in off-line, real world Wikipedia activities, such as Wikimeets, outreach work, or training. How much are you currently involved in these off-line activities, and would this be different if you were or were not on the Arbitration Committee? Bazonka (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Answer: I've attended about a dozen wiki-meetups of one form or another over the past six years, mostly in New York but some in Washington, Hartford, and Philadelphia. I'm also a board member of the New York Chapter and have meant to participate in some of its outreach programs, although due to scheduling conflicts I haven't done too much of this yet. I've given a couple of talks at New York meetups, a video of the most substantive of which (on BLP issues) is linked from my userpage. I don't think that my being an arbitrator has affected these other activities too much, and I expect to continue them whether or not I'm reelected. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Question from Begoon
I posted most of this to the discussion on the failed motion to "suspend" Elen, and if you find it phrased oddly as a question, that's why - the page was archived almost immediately afterwards. It occurs to me that maybe some voters might be interested in candidates' reactions to a question like this, so I'm asking it of each of you. It's a very open question, so feel free to ignore it or to comment on it in any way at all.

Is it an arbitration body we want? Do you think that's what we have? It doesn't seem to arbitrate at all, most of the time, it sits in judgement and hands down sanctions from on high. That's not the same thing at all. Do you think, instead, we've ended up with GOVCOM, complete with all the lovely political trimmings that brings along. If you think that's true - how did we get here, and is this where we want to be?
 * Answer: Wikipedia Arbitration is a form of arbitration, meaning a method of dispute resolution in which the decision-makers (the arbitrators) issue binding decisions on the issues brought before them. "Handing down sanctions" on editors is one possible outcome to an arbitration case, but it is not the only possible outcome, and the fact that this is sometimes the outcome doesn't change the fact that we are arbitrating. In this respect, arbitration is to be distinguished from mediation, in which the mediators try to bring the parties together and may make recommendations, but the parties are free to reject them and there is no binding outcome unless the parties agree.
 * It is possible that a better term for what the Committee does than "arbitration" could have been coined when the Committee was formed in 2004. This is really a semantic and historical point more than anything else.
 * I don't agree at all with those (on- and off-wiki) who claim that we have a "Governance Committee" as opposed to an Arbitration Committee. For one thing, the Committee has a very limited role in setting site policy, as I've discussed in answering general question 3(a)(1) above, whereas if we were governing the site, we would presumably have a much greater policy-defining role. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Question from My very best wishes
When something comes to Arbcom attention, a common practice is to simply look if there was any violation of policies and to sanction everyone appropriately. But there was a suggestion by Count Iblis to give people one last chance to fix the problem by asking them: "Would you, editors X, Y and Z, agree to resolve your differences or simply withdraw from the conflict right now, or you would rather face arbitration?". This is not anything unreasonable because some people, and especially those who did not file the case but were brought to arbitration by other parties, could indeed prefer to simply stop doing whatever they do. Of course you might object that people had an ample opportunity to resolve their differences earlier, but whatever they did before, that was not the same as facing the arbitration. So, would you agree to create a new standard practice of giving people one last chance to stop disruption (no matter what they do) prior to facing arbitration? I think such practice would be consistent with the idea of preventing any further disruption, rather than punishment. My very best wishes (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Answer: I think that we already do this a fair proportion of the time; I know that I individually do. First of all, both under the Arbitration Policy and as a matter of practice, the Arbitration Committee rarely accepts a case unless there have been prior attempts at dispute resolution, usually through multiple levels. Thus, the "you really need to stop doing [whatever]" card will have already been played before the issue gets to us. Despite that, arbitrators will typically explore at the case-acceptance stage whether the problem can be addressed short of an arbitration case, which is another opportunity for users who have been conducting themselves problematically to promise to change their behavior.
 * Even once a case is opened, the arbitrators will typically keep an eye on how the parties are behaving. If a party promises during the case that he or she will do things very differently from now on, that will ordinarily be taken into account in drafting the findings and remedies. If a party's editing while a case is pending is completely proper, we may see how we need to deal with that party very differently from if he or she is continuing to behave badly. It is surprising, quite frankly, to see the number of parties who continue to behave badly even while an arbitration case is open and scrutinizing their behavior&mdash;and how often the bad behavior sometimes includes their posts on the arbitration pages themselves. But we are always pleased when the opposite is true.
 * Not every party to an arbitration case is sanctioned, and not every sanction is a ban or a topic-ban. Sometimes editors are warned to improve their behavior, instructed how to improve their behavior&mdash;and often, the sanction imposes discretionary sanctions, a step that accords yet another chance to those involved in the topic area.
 * There are those who think that far from being too quick to sanction people, the Arbitration Committee has typically been too lenient in putting up with bad behavior from editors, especially in controversial topic-areas. What value is there, they say, to keeping one disruptive editor editing, if the stress of dealing with him or her drives five good editors away? It's a balancing, one that must be done in 'most every case. That balancing is one of the arbitrators' most important responsibilities. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions from GabeMc
Questions: 1) Do you think it's appropriate for an admin to close an RfC/RfM when said admin had previously participated in an AN/I report discussion, supporting the resulting indef-block for a highly vocal party to the mediation from which the RfC originated? 2) Assuming that a) this has in fact happened, and b) you indeed think it's inappropriate, what then would you suggest as a remedy? GabeMc (talk 01:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Answer: As with several of the other questions on this page, your question is a little bit too abstract to permit an absolute yes-or-no answer.
 * From my experience, it sounds like you may have had a specific recent situation in mind as you composed your question. I'm not aware what situation that was, and I'm deliberately not looking back through your talkpage or contributions to try to figure it out, so I don't know whether any specific administrator you might have in mind acted well or not.
 * It seems obvious from the wording of the question that you consider that the administrator had become involved in the underlying dispute and therefore shouldn't have closed the RfC/RfM. In many circumstances, that might be correct, not so much based on the concept of WP:INVOLVED specifically, as on the concept that a closer should both be impartial and seem impartial, in order for the parties to a dispute to have confidence in the fairness of the result.
 * However, I can easily imagine situations where the most qualified administrator to close the community discussion on an issue might have previously opined on a block of a party to the dispute, without any legitimate question of fairness being raised. Here's an admittedly simplified example. Suppose that we have an article on the history of human understanding concerning the shape of the earth, which begins "in ancient times some people assumed that the earth was flat, but it was then realized that in fact the earth is round." an editor proposes to replace "round" with "an oblate spheroid." A lengthy discussion and dispute arises, in which Editors A, B, and C argue for "round"; Editors D, E, and F argue for "an oblate spheroid"&mdash;and Editor G argues over and over that everyone else is wrong and in fact the article should begin with the observation that the illuminati have proved that the earth is banana-shaped. At some point, it becomes clear that G is editing tendentiously and disruptively, but rather than block G unilaterally, Admin X starts an ANI thread, in which consensus emerges that G should be blocked, with X agreeing with the consensus. I wouldn't consider X disqualified from closing an ensuing mediation.
 * So again, while I'm not trying to duck your question, all the circumstances of a situation need to be considered; there are fewer black-and-white rules on Wikipedia than people might imagine, especially given the unfortunately declining number of active administrators, which implies that the number of admins who are both knowledgeable about a given topic, willing to close contentious discussions concerning the topic, and have never ventured an opinion on-wiki on any related matter, may be smaller at any given time than we would like.
 * All that being said, if there is an RfC on a content dispute between Editor A and Editor B, of course it often will not be good practice for it to be closed by an administrator who has recently blocked Editor B.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up. - Right, your above example is nearly exactly where my nebulous question was attempting to go, except that the admin in question did not block editor B, rather they actively participated in the discussion and !vote that led to the block, which they supported. Also, editor B was perhaps the most effective party to that side of the mediation which was later closed in favour of editor A. In this case, what is your answer to question #2? GabeMc (talk 23:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Answer: Addressed below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Rephrase
 * 1) Questions: 1) Would you close an RfC happening as part of a formal mediation when you had 3 months previously participated in an AN/I discussion and !vote in which you supported the indef-block of an especially vocal party to the same dispute that resulted in said RfM and RfC? 2) Assuming this has happened inappropriately, what remedy would you suggest? GabeMc  (talk 03:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Answer: Thanks for the clarification, but although you may find it unsatisfying, the answer is still "it depends on all the circumstances." If in a multi-party dispute, one of the parties is habitually behaving so poorly that there is a consensus on ANI to block him or her, and an administrator is one of the several voices in favor of such a block, this may have little bearing on his or her ability to impartially close an RfC three months later. On the other hand, if the dispute is strongly between Editor A and Editor B, and the administrator was the loudest voice for blocking Editor B, and the block was a borderline one, and Editor B is a key participant in an RfC involving the same issue as the block, one could anticipate that Editor B is not likely to be persuaded that a close contrary to that position, authored by that same administrator, is fair. Obviously there can be many scenarios in between those two extremes.
 * In terms of a remedy if the RfC is closed by the "wrong" administrator, the path is actually not clear. There is no settled mechanism for reviewing RfC closings, as there has long been for XfDs and has been established more recently for RMs. As is discussed about in Cunard's questions, there is currently a community process ongoing as to whether such a mechanism should be created. The argument in favor of doing so is that it would provide a clear outcome to disputed closings, as opposed to revert-warring over closings or allowing feelings of unfairness to linger. The argument against is that this would be still another bureaucratic, complicated procedure, at a time when many feel that Wikipedia is suffering from elephantiasis of the rules and regulations and procedures, to the point that both new and experienced editors are sometimes overwhelmed.
 * In the interim, I suppose the proper "remedy" for an allegedly improper closure is to raise the issue on ANI and see if a consensus emerges that there is a problem. As a first step, of course, one would raise the concern with the administrator himself or herself.
 * Another caveat is that if a particular administrator has been selected or indicates that he or she is going to close a discussion, any objection to that administrator's doing so should be voiced before the closure. To wait until afterwards may suggest that the objection was motivated by the outcome rather than something else. Of course, if the identity of the closing administrator wasn't known until the closing is posted, the observation in this paragraph wouldn't apply. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Question: Thanks for your response. I actually thought the idea here was to word the questions in a vague way so as to avoid naming names or finger-pointing to specific situations. Your above answer seems to contradict: "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." Would !voting to block someone constitute a conflict of interest or an indication of bias when said admin later closes a RfM to which said editor was a party when blocked? Perhaps I am misreading an important aspect of this guideline, will you please clarify. As per "To wait until afterwards ...", WP:AGF, the potential conflict was discovered after the closure. GabeMc  (talk 01:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Answer: I'm going to respond to this in two ways: first, in the general case as you have requested, and then second, with regard to the specific situation that I've now discovered inspired this series of questions, having little or nothing to do with arbitration, that you have posed to me and a number of the other candidates.


 * I don't agree that my answer above conflicts with either the letter or spirit of the policy on "involved" administrators (a policy that has been honed and applied over the years in a number of arbitration decisions that I've drafted or voted on). On the formal or technical level, commenting in support of a block on AN or ANI is not clearly an "administrator action": any editor, not only administrators, may comment in such discussions, and a comment isn't an "action."


 * One also needs to consider the purpose, rather than merely the wording, of the policy. An administrator should be considered "involved" in a dispute if he or she has a vested interest in the outcome of the dispute, or if his or her ability to be fair and impartial in resolving the dispute could reasonably be questioned. (This is similar to my standard for when I recuse as an arbitrator, as discussed in response to another question above.) A key word word in that phrase is, "could reasonably be questioned." At some point, every administrator who has been active over a long period of time will be within six degrees of separation to every complicated multi-party dispute on the wiki. The concept of involvement and the requirement that administrators not take action in disputes with which they are involved, must be construed in a reasonable and practical fashion. It is not the case that an administrator who has supported blocking one party to a complicated multi-party dispute, perhaps for reasons having little or nothing to do with that dispute, is forever disqualified from ever assisting in helping to resolve any aspect of that dispute.


 * In addition, you suggest AGF regarding the possibility that the administrator's prior involvement or conflict of interest was discovered only after the fact. But if that is accepted, then AGF should also apply to the possibility that the administrator did not notice any connection between a prior ANI discussion and the closing of an RfC or RfM or mediation case some months later, especially if no one else ever noticed the (actual or alleged) issue and mentioned it to him or her.


 * Beyond all that, I stand by my answer as given previously.


 * Now to move from the general to the specific. As I've answered your series of questions about this pseudo-hypothetical closing, and as I've seen you posing similar questions to a number of the other candidates and seeking to pin some of us down with multiple follow-up questions, I began to wonder what might have be leading you to press so intently. The answer came when I located the links you posted on another candidate's page to the actual situation that concerned you. I was completely startled to find that you are challenging my own closing of the "'the/The Beatles' capitalization" dispute RfC last month, and am not impressed that you constructed an entire complex (and as I explain below inaccurate and incomplete) series of questions based on that situation without telling me that I was the administrator whose actions you were talking about.


 * As you may be aware, I haven't specialized as an administrator in closing RfCs. The two "Beatles" mediators specially asked me to close this one, presumably because I'm a long-time administrator whose judgment is sometimes considered respectable. I agreed to take on this assignment. The mediators asked on the RfM page if I was an acceptable choice, and everyone, including yourself, said yes ("Support. Seems like a fine choice to me."). For several weeks while the poll was taking place, and after it was closed and I was assessing the results, the mediation/poll page said prominently at the top that the poll was going to be closed and the result posted by Newyorkbrad. No one protested at my being picked as closer, and several people thanked me for being willing to wade into this long-term morass.


 * After the poll closed, I spent a fair amount of time reviewing the results. As you know, I posted a closing with a detailed rationale. In it, I noted that the consensus (almost a 2:1 margin in the poll !voting) was for "the Beatles" (small "t") rather than "The Beatles" (capital "T") in mid-sentence use. I closed the poll/RfM/RfC in favor of that usage, but I noted a couple of caveats, such as that in some situations it still might be better to rephrase a sentence to avoid the issue.


 * Several editors thanked me for the analysis I had put into the closing. You, of course, were one of them, and in fact perhaps the most vocal in your thanks. Your first comment on my close was:
 * Nicely done NYB! I am quite glad to know that you are well and I am also very glad that this mediation is now over. You did a really great job with your closure (big surprise ... lol), its balanced and focused, and it highlights the key points without getting bogged down in too much detail. Now that this embarrasing, and resource wasting chapter is behind us, I look forward to improving Beatles related articles without the hinderance of the dispute. Cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ... and a bit later you also wrote (same link):
 * Well, the closure is succinct yet informative, which is not an easy accomplishment. I am particularly impressed with the way you were able to avoid, indeed you discredited the idea that one side was right while the other was wrong. A nicely delivered piece of diplomacy that will no doubt contribute to the speedy recovery of the community of Beatles editors stressed by the mediation, and in moving forward from this episode in a spirit of cooperation and collaboration. Thanks again... GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * At a time when civility on the project is at a premium and the way Wikipedians treat one another is a concern, I appreciated both the substance of these comments and your courtesy in making them.
 * A couple of days later (again, see same link), you returned to my talkpage and asked me to address some issues regarding my closing comments. I did so, albeit not as quickly as you might have liked (I was out of the country for a few days with limited online time). It seems that at some point, you realized that the outcome of my close represented maybe a 90% "victory" rather than a 100% victory for your "side" of the capitalization dispute, and you began to develop reservations about how "nicely done" my closing was after all. Within a few days, you were raising objections to what you described as "Contradictions in the caveats". In these, you argued among other things that my closing was invalid or tainted in some fashion:
 * I agreed to abide by either "the" or "The", not a mix and not "neither", which were, for extremely valid reasons, not options in the poll. Remember that our agreement hinged on all parties agreeing to the poll options? Brad stepped a bit outside his remit here by casually endorsing an option explicitly excluded by the mediators and the parties to the mediation after extended discussion.... ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Although few, if any, other editors, perceived a raft of contradictions and problems and issues in my closing, you continued to pursue your concerns on the closing page. You also created a fuss about my observation that "The Beatles" with capital "T" could still appear in direct quotations from sources that contain that usage, on one of the Manual of style pages (see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 133). While the typographical question you raised was arguably legitimate, you pressed it with a degree of zeal that must be considered excessive, to the point that another administrator warned that you could be blocked for disruptive editing if you did not stop.


 * Thereafter, frankly I have not have time to follow the implementation of the poll/mediation result or the "the/The" editing quandary, although I've been meaning to look in on it again at some point; my wikitime has been taken up with answering questions on this page plus, for a refreshing change (though so far to an insufficient degree), a little bit of mainspace work. No one has come back to me in the past few weeks and told me that the very limited caveats to my close were causing any sort of trouble, and although I'm prepared to be corrected (but not on this page where it would be off-topic), I haven't seen evidence that they are causing any trouble at all. More important for purposes of this question, no one has raised any question with me, in any venue or at any time, as to whether I was a proper person to close the RfC.


 * I now learn from your post on another candidate's question page, which brought me to the links you posted on Kww's talkpage, that the "general" question you post above is supposedly about me and the fact that in July, I participated in an ANI discussion concerning a block of an editor who had engaged in what I described there as a number of different types of ongoing disruptive behavior. Consensus emerged in favor of an indefinite block, which I supported. I do not want to dwell here (or anywhere) on the reasons that I (not a notoriously block-happy administrator or arbitrator, I think all would agree) found this block necessary; suffice it to say that it was very much in the best interests of all concerned, including the user, that this user not be editing at that time based on his or her on-wiki behavior.


 * While it appears that this editor had taken part in the/The Beatles dispute, this fact had little if anything to do with the reasons for the indefinite block. The word "Beatles" appears twice in the lengthy ANI thread. It does not appear in my posts, and I did not perceive the block as having anything to do with anything Beatles-related. At the time I was asked to close the/The Beatles mediation/RfC, it did not even remotely occur to me, or it seems to anyone else, that the block of this user had anything to do with the issue on which I was asked to opine. Three months later,when I did closed the mediation/RfC, it equally did not occur to me, or again to anybody, that my impartiality or "uninvolvedness" could be questioned because I was one of a dozen or more editors who participated in the block discussion. Nor has anyone thereafter raised the question until you have obliquely brought it up in these questions, and more directly on Kww's talk.


 * Now that I know what you are talking about, and even though you have raised your alleged concern both belatedly and disingenuously, I have carefully considered it. It is frivolous and without merit. I do not believe that any reasonable Wikipedian, being aware of the block discussion on ANI and of my closing (by request) of the/The Beatles RfC three months later, would question my ability to both be impartial and appear impartial. I have never stated (and in fact do not have) any preference whether "the Beatles" or "The Beatles" should be used mid-sentence in Wikipedia articles. I have never discussed this issue with the blocked user or with anyone else. When I agreed to close and did close the mediation, I either had forgotten or had never known that the blocked user was a party to the dispute. I had no motive and I did not shade my closing either in favor of or in opposition to the blocked user's opinion on the issue, which I don't even recall what it was. You yourself repeatedly complimented me on the soundness of my analysis and presentation as the closer, until you decided that you didn't like part of the outcome after all. No one other than you has made any connection between this closing and the block of one of more than a hundred editors who expressed a view on the capitalization. There is absolutely no such connection.


 * Your question above includes: "Would !voting to block someone constitute a conflict of interest or an indication of bias when said admin later closes a RfM to which said editor was a party when blocked?" Before I realized you were talking about me, I said several times (and other candidates answering this question have agreed) that this isn't a yes-or-no question but depends on specific circumstances. Now that I know what situation you are talking about, the answer to your question is "of course not." Are you suggesting that (1) I supported blocking this editor because I disagreed with his or her position on capitalizing "the/The Beatles"? Or that (2) I closed the discussion the way I did, not because of the poll results or the arguments, but because I wanted to get back in some way at the blocked user? Or that (3) the ANI discussion three months earlier gave me a conscious, or for that matter a subconscious, bias on whether and when "The Beatles" should be capitalized? Or (4) that any reasonable person, knowledgeable of the circumstances, would believe any one or more of these things?


 * I do not believe that anyone other than perhaps yourself believes any of these things, and hence, to return to your original question, I conclude (while conceding that on this question I am an involved party) that there was nothing whatsoever wrong with my closing of this mediation and RfC. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * More questions from GabeMc
 * 1) I think you are missing the point with your "4 points" above. By actively leading the effort to block Peny (4 or 5 !votes cite your rationale) you forever changed the course of the mediation. Is that not grounds to recuse in and of itself?  GabeMc  (talk 23:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Under all the circumstances described above, no. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you think this raises a general concern about ArbCom members participating at AN/I?  GabeMc  (talk 23:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Since I wasn't asked to close the RfC/RM in my capacity as an arbitrator, the issue of ArbCom members participating at ANI is not raised by this closure. There are indeed pros and cons to ArbCom members participating on ANI, but those have to more to do with concerns that disputes on ANI may later come to arbitration, which is a different issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Per: "[Y]ou have raised your alleged concern both belatedly and disingenuously" Is this an appropriate way to insult someone asking honest questions? To accuse me of "disingenuously" asking these questions is a personal attack IMO. "Belated"? You're close was 12 days late! Why is there a time-frame for raising concerns when you took as long as you needed to close the RfC?  GabeMc  (talk 23:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you think my response above contained a personal attack, you should have seen the paragraph I deleted before posting. As for my delay in closing the RfC, the reasons included an out-of-the-country trip and a hurricane. This has nothing to do with your apparently looking for an excuse to overturn a closure that you praised at the time and that no one else has challenged or questioned. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you think a closing admin should generally choose between the choices in the actual RfC poll, or should they feel free to offer opinions on matters they were never asked to comment on? E.g., after much deliberation and discussion, we decided that our RfC would have options A and B, yet you somehow found a way to add C, though no parties to the mediation supported it's inclusion.  GabeMc  (talk 23:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I stand by my closure, which as I said earlier, you not only endorsed but lavishly praised when I posted it. To the extent you have raised a few follow-up points, this isn't the venue to address them, and your rhetoric has poisoned any appetite I might have had for addressing them elsewhere. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Per: "No one other than you has made any connection between this closing and the block of one of more than a hundred editors who expressed a view on the capitalization", a red herring, Peny was one of just 17 parties to the mediation, not hundreds. You helped block the most vocal member of one side, isn't that a good enough reason to recuse?  GabeMc  (talk 23:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Under the circumstances I've described at (excessive) length above, and especially given that neither I nor anyone else had ever made the connection, no. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * More questions from GabeMc
 * 1) Why did you directly contradict the mediators and the agreement between the mediation parties to exclude the "avoid-dance" as an unviable and unworkable option?  GabeMc  (talk 00:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In my closing, I explained a clear result which was one of the two choices provided, for when a choice needed to be made. In a one-sentence caveat, I suggested that "the suggestion that editors should try to structure sentences to avoid unnecessary mid-sentence use of 'the Beatles' remains a valid one." I did not suggest that in all situations, or even in most situations, rewording the sentence could avoid the disputed t/T. I stand by my closing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Did you research what the mediators had previously decided before closing the RfC? If not why not, if so, what did you discover?  GabeMc  (talk 00:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't think there is much more to be added to everything I've said above. Or to put it differently, there's a time and place for Bradspeak, and there's a time and place for Pythonspeak. I've exhausted the former, and it would be indecorous for me to indulge in the latter, so I think it's time to close this thread. No further questions on this subject will be received. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I take that as a resounding NO. As far as: "No further questions on this subject will be received", do you think this makes you look good as an Arb. GabeMc  (talk 00:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I will trust the community of voters to decide whether or not I have been sufficiently responsive here to your questions and concerns.
 * (The election moderators are respectfully but strongly requested not to move this colloquy to any other page or location, as it may be helpful to voters in evaluating both GabeMc's position and mine.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Another question from GabeMc
 * 1) Why endorse an option expressly dismissed by our mediators? Please explain.  GabeMc  (talk 00:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Already answered in the previous section. And what part of "no further questions on this subject will be received" was ambiguous? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * More questions from GabeMc
 * 1) Where? And is it really good practice for a candidate to disallow pertinent questions?  GabeMc  (talk 01:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I have said everything I have to say in answer to your questions, so there is no value to your continuing to ask them again and again. For a candidate to have to decline further questions from an editor is certainly not an optimal situation, but the way you have approached this situation is hardly optimal either. See also (but please don't respond right now to) the last comment on my talkpage regarding any needed follow-up on the mediation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Is the above thread an indication of your ability to remain cool and civil?  GabeMc  (talk 01:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. It reflects that I do my very best to model calmness and civility, but like anyone else I am human and eventually run out of patience when I perceive that I am being treated or discussed unfairly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Civility enforcement questionnaire
Or more of a request: I'd appreciate it if you'd take part in the Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire, or if you decline, say here why you consider this questionnaire not to be worth your time. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 18:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll be glad to take a look at the questionnaire, but it will probably have to wait until after this election is over, as the questions keep on coming in (though they are fewer than in past years). Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, through I don't know when the questionnaire will be closed. The sooner you could answer it, the better. I also have few more questions, which I'll post in a new subsection below. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 22:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Additional questions
Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 22:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) when would you see a full site ban (full block) as a better choice then a limited ban (interaction, topic, etc.)? You are welcome to combine your answer to this with my subsequent question:
 * Answer: A limited sanction such as a topic-ban or other restriction is warranted where an editor behaves problematically in one area (e.g. on one group of articles, or in relations with another editor), but is able to edit productively and unproblematically in other areas. A site ban is warranted when an editor's overall editing displays serious user-conduct problems, which are not addressed after reasonable warning, and in a few other situations making it undesirable that the user continue participating in Wikipedia. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) on a related note, a while ago I wrote a mini wiki essay on when to block people (see here). Would you agree or disagree with the views expressed there, and why?
 * Answer: I think your essay does a very good job in summarizing the types of factors that should be considered in making these decisions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) to an extent we can compare the virtual wiki world to the real world, what legal concept would you compare a full site ban to? (As in, an interaction ban is to a restraining order what a full site ban is to...?)
 * Answer: Being banished or exiled from a city or country, or perhaps having one's visa to enter another country revoked. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) do you think there is an analogy to be drawn between site banning (full block) and incarceration?
 * Answer: I think banishment or exile is the better analogy, because a site ban doesn't confine an editor to Wikipedia; it bars the editor from Wikipedia. (In any event, I fear that comparing any sort of remedy that can be imposed here to real-world incarceration exaggerates the importance of what we do here; as self-important as we are sometimes, the worst we can do is send someone away from editing our website.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) do you think the United States justice model with the highest incarceration rate in the world (List of countries by incarceration rate) is something to applaud or criticize?
 * Answer: I think it's terribly sad. As someone who has a hard time voting to ban someone from editing Wikipedia, you can imagine how I feel about jailing people except as a last resort. But only part of what makes me sad is the decisions to incarcerate people; the rest of what makes me sad is that we have so many people behaving (for whatever reason) in ways that lead to incarceration. Of course, a large part of the incarceration rate relates to the legal status of drugs and related issues, but I think we are probably about to veer pretty well off-topic for this page if we start in on that discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Question from Martinevans123

 * 1) Question: "The use of four letter words by editors in Wikipedia "discussions" is perfectly acceptable, as it quickly brings everyone to the "same level." - Do you agree? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A: Wikipedia doesn't, and shouldn't, have a list of the "bad words that mustn't be used," as might be found at a junior high school, or in the opinion in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation. On the other hand, overuse of the handful of words generally characterized as the most profane, obscene, or vulgar tends to coarsen the tone of a discussion, especially when the words are aimed at other editors. For this reason, I personally avoid using these words on-wiki most of the time. For exceptional instances when I used two or more such words in a row, see here and here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I applaud the humour of your second example. I think your first example is rather acutely apposite, and I believe shows that you are a very reasonable editor/ admin. It's difficult, isn't it, being careful not to treat editors like naughty school children and then in return seeing them act like naughty school children. Thank you for a very intelligent response to my obviously loaded non-question. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)