Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates/Newyorkbrad/Questions

Individual questions
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

Question from Ajraddatz

 * Not sure if it's customary to respond after the answer is given, but that seems like a very sensible perspective to me. I especially agree regarding voter fatigue and the success that the process has had thus far in selecting good candidates. Best of luck! -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure if it's customary to respond after the answer is given, but that seems like a very sensible perspective to me. I especially agree regarding voter fatigue and the success that the process has had thus far in selecting good candidates. Best of luck! -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Questions from Collect
Thank you. Collect (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Question from *thing goes
Regarding security in e-mail-communication, especially when it comes to potentially sensitive information about “editors”: --18:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you deem unencrypted e-mail-communication with said content sufficiently secure and private?
 * 2) Would you strive to see your policy regarding that matter realized?
 * I have little technical expertise in the cybersecurity arena and am not someone who will be taking a lead in making policy or promoting technical advances in this area. I am always glad to follow reasonable guidelines for how information security of sensitive information can be preserved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Questions from Sarah777

 * 1) Would you support the unconditional lifting of restrictions placed on me by Arbcom about 7 years ago?
 * I would certainly evaluate any such request you filed with an open mind, especially after that much time. In considering such an appeal, I would apply the test I used in the past regarding any such request, which primarily asks whether if the restrictions were lifted, whether the editor would be able to avoid the problems in his or her future editing that led to the restrictions' being imposed to begin with. That said, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to review your specific case and give an opinion regarding a hypothetical appeal on this questions page.
 * 1) Do you accept that there is an in-built bias towards an "Anglo-Saxon" perspective on En Wikipedia?
 * In terms of the scope of article coverage, there is certainly greater coverage on English Wikipedia of topics relating to English-speaking peoples than others, because of both the availability of sources and the knowledge and interests of our editor base. There is also greater coverage of the developed than the developing world, for reasons which have been discussed at length all over the project. To that extent I'd say the answer to your question is yes. But if what you are really asking whether the article content is biased in favor of British perspectives as opposed to others in terms of NPOV, the answer is that I haven't observed that, though I haven't specifically looked at the issue.
 * 1) Do you acknowledge that "civility" is often used as a political weapon by Admins to suppress perspectives they disagree with? Sarah777 (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it's happened on occasion, and if and when it happens, it needs to be stopped. But it also happens that accusations of taking sides are advanced against administrators who are simply trying in good faith to enforce neutrality and decorum on contentious articles, and that shouldn't happen either.