Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Newyorkbrad

Sprawling, unfocused, repetitive evidence, and long durations
I was a little disappointed that NYB's response to general question 8 (proposals for change) rightly identified the length of cases as a major problem, but offered no specific avenues for the new Committee to explore that might avoid the blow-out of cases: Pretty much every candidate for the Arbitration Committee campaigns on a platform of "cases need to be decided faster," and [three years ago] I was no exception.... I've done my best to keep things moving ... there are too many cases that have taken too long, ...

Given Roger Davies' recent observation in a Signpost interview that "the cases ArbCom hears have become bigger, nastier and much more complex", I wonder whether NYB's RL expertise in legal text and process might be the basis for specific suggestions as to limiting the size of evidentiary text and the sprawling duration of cases. I'm not referring so much to the drafting stage, but the evidentiary stages. Why isn't four or five weeks enough for a big case, given the stress of long cases for the parties and the arbitrators, and multiple demonstrations of how anger and frustration between parties tend to increase during an extended case. How might word lengths be brought under control when there are many parties? Might parties be systemically encouraged to workshop more unified (and therefore shorter, and perhaps more focused) responses before submitting evidence? Is there a role for tighter stage-deadlines? Tony  (talk)  06:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll be discussing this issue in a couple of responses to other questions, including one specifically about the Climate change case, in the next few days. Input from others here would be welcome as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, NYB. Tony   (talk)  11:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, here you go: You guys screwed the pooch about 11 different ways on that case... stapling three cases together when two of them could have been handled with quick and easy motions, asking for input about questions that needed addressing, and then never doing a thing with them, not participating as the case went along to help steer it, then shutting down discussion completely for a month while you all took a runner... and that's all **before** the proposed decision was posted. I won't even go into the problems with what happened afterwards or the decision itself. Why should we believe that you (collectively) are going to do any better? And more over, why should we believe that you (personally) are going to have the mettle to come to grips with the problematic individuals in complex cases when you didn't really do so in this one, or in several others? ++Lar: t/c 02:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with Lar here. The Committee needs to come to grips with the more recent environment of the big nasties. It still treats cases with similar procedures and protocols to those it had in the relatively innocent days of 2005. Tony   (talk)  02:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (To Lar) I don't know if you've a chance to read my answer to individual question 3 (on the main questions page), where I discussed some aspects of the Climate change case yesterday. I don't know if you'll think that is (anticipatorily) responsive to the points you made above, but it acknowledges at least some of them. As for "com[ing] to grips with the problematic individuals" in the case, the committee ultimately voted to topic-ban a dozen editors from the Climate change topic areas; I voted in favor of more than half of the topic-bans, while suggesting that less severe sanctions could be considered against a few other editors (and as to some of those editors, for all I know you might have agreed with me). I've voted for bans (both topic bans and outright site-bans) where warranted in other cases as well, both simple and complex, though I will certainly oppose a ban when I think a more lenient sanction would be more fitting. As for the more general question of "strict vs. lenient," as I've said elsewhere, it is also important to have a range of approaches rather than a single one; there is a reason that the position I am seeking reelection to is not that of The Arbitrator Of Wiki, but as a single member of an 18-member committee. Lastly, while I have acknowledged more than once that the Climate change case was not the committee's finest hour, I have to say (despite some constraint I feel about arguing with the voters on an election page, much less taking the risk of blaming them for a committee failing) that with all due respect, this case was not many of the case participants' finest hour either. Do you think your behavior as a party to the case made my, or my colleagues', job in this case any easier?
 * (To Tony1) I actually had some refinements of procedure in mind for the MickMacNee/blocking-unblocking policy case, but then my colleagues voted not to take the case. I had in mind setting up a workshop by topic, and also creating and enforcing deadlines for evidence submission and so forth, because the case was straightforward enough that we would not likely have been overcome by excessive masses of evidence. My goal has always been to expedite the arbitration process, and it seems I once was good at doing that; there are several cases I wrote that went from opening to closing in a couple of weeks or less. In this area, as in many others, I can only say that I will always do my best. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In answer to the question you asked me: Yes, if you had actually paid any attention to what I said before and during the case. Or had been there to lend support to the sanctions regime the community came up with when you (collectively) were asked specific targeted questions, early on, which you ignored. This case had some of the most pernicious factional behavior I've seen, and certainly the worst outside of ethnic areas. Which you pretty much blew off dealing with. What was the point of the principle about factionalism you articulated if you didn't then use it for anything? And I'll again ask, why on earth the big show of asking what everyone's concerns were and then ignoring the input, even when asked what you planned to do with it? I think you've got a good bit of "blame the victim" going on here, NYB. As well as a lot of straining at gnats and swallowing camels, with a healthy dose of shoot the messenger. ++Lar: t/c 04:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I probably should have stuck with my initial instinct that this page is for discussion about each candidate such as myself, rather than for responses as on the questions page. This is not for lack of desire to respond to questions or criticism, but more a matter of not getting in the way of the discussion, or focusing too much attention on any one point. If there are further questions about this or any other matter, from anyone, I'll be glad to address them on the questions page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Lar, it's a tough tone in your most recent post: I hope NYB has been left enough "space" to show how his legal expertise can be put to the task of modifying the Committee's protocols and procedures. But he cannot achieve reform alone without support from the community and the other arbs. Tony   (talk)  07:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * NYB that was a non answer. Would you rather I repeated what I said on the questions page? Because I am sure I'm not the only person interested in your actual answers. ++Lar: t/c 14:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I wish we had more Arbs (and editors, for that matter) who were capable of polite non-engagement in the face of aggressive badgering. Since this tangent seems increasingly focused on your personal grievances about the climate-change case, it might be best to take it up elsewhere, so that Brad can address more general issues here. I think Tony is gently suggesting the same thing. MastCell Talk 20:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's certainly one view of this subtopic, and I can see why you in particular might hold it, MastCell, but I'm not sure it's generally held. (in other words, nice try on the spin, when the message gets uncomfy shoot the messenger) At any rate, I've already offered to move this to the questions talk page, and I await a response on that procedural matter from NYB. Whether it will then lead to a response on the substantive issues raised remains to be seen. I think Iridescent may have went a bit far in her evaluation (quoted above) of NYB but I can see where she's coming from. At this point I'm afraid I cannot in good conscience support this candidate for a repeat performance. Perhaps if some acknowledgment of error and undertaking to do better were forthcoming... I was among the 500+ supporters in the first go round and I suspect my view is a minority but I do think unless NYB changes approach, we may be better off with fresher voices and fresher ideas. ++Lar: t/c 00:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty clear from my comments above and from my answer to individual question 3 on the other page that I don't point with pride to Climate change in retrospect as a smoothly-processed case or as typical of the cases I've handled for the committee, other than with respect to the fairness that I attempted to display and perhaps in the detail of my comments on the proposed decision page. I'd urge that you and every voter judge my record of three years' service based on the whole of the three years' service, rather than on that of a single case in which I was one of multiple drafters&mdash;which was also, FWIW, a case in which you were one of the parties and throughout the course of which I, and I daresay other arbitrators, found your strident rhetoric to be, at best, unhelpful. As for procedure here, I do think it would be best to have questions on the questions pages, including both the main questions page and the questions talkpage that I set up at your request; and I suspect that would be the election coordinators' preference as well, though I won't make a fetish of what goes where. As for fresher voices and fresher ideas, I will (as will we all) defer to the decision of the community of voters: suffice it to say that I would 100% agree with your desire for a new voice if the election were to fill one seat on the committee; in reality, the election is to fill 11 seats on an 18-member committee, meaning that there is likely to be turnover of a majority of the members, and voters are challenged to balance the need for new voices with the potential desirability of some continuity as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry if you find this strident... but you have, again, failed to respond to the specific questions or concerns and instead emitted rhetoric. I despair of you actually addressing the points I raised. As I did before. ++Lar: t/c 01:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (We should undent soon if there is much more of this.) I didn't say that I found your comments in this thread strident (I will let them speak for themselves); I said many of your comments on the Climate change pages were strident, and I think that they were. I'll answer your questions on the questions page, later or in the morning. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC) I've now responded to the two questions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Brad is 100% correct. This isn't the place for questions, or for grievances about specific Arb cases. In my view, Brad has provided extremely detailed and thorough if somewhat longish answers to all Lar's questions. And certainly his patience (demosntrated throughout his tenure and exemplified by the above discussion) is commendable. Not a small bonus for an arb. - BorisG (talk) 12:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * First, my thanks to Brad for his response to my question. On BorisG's last point: I don't agree. If people have grievances concerning specific arbitrator decisions, the arb election is as good a place as any to air them. However, I think that people need to disclose if they are mentioned in the decision, if they are. Lar is cited for battlefield conduct here, and that needs to be pointed out to make his exchange with Brad understandable. NYBrad abstained, but his comment speaks for itself.ScottyBerg (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Always gotta get that dig in if you can, don't you ScottyBerg? Oddly, you don't point that out for everyone mentioned in the case, just me... bit battlefield there, isn't it? I admit I let the baiting get to me from time to time, yes. But that's not the point of my comments. The point is, this case was botched badly, and NYB is a good part of why. Blaming the participants for his failings shows part of the problem. ++Lar: t/c 21:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's unfair to say that NYBrad "is a good part of why" the case was "botched," and that kind of criticism makes a lot more sense when read in conjunction with your being cited in a decision in which NYBrad participated. You really need to disclose that, voluntarily, when you take potshots at arbs who were involved in citing you for battlefield conduct. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Why exactly is that not a fair assessment? Findings about me are irrelevant, I would have had the same view if I hadn't even been a party. Did you really want to argue that this case wasn't botched? Go ahead, explain how asking for input and then doing nothing with it, letting the case sit for a month with pages locked down, etc, isn't "botching" a case. ++Lar: t/c 00:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? Assessments of arbs by parties who've been dragged through arbitration proceedings, in which those arbs participated, are inherently suspect. You've been so dragged. You were cited. You were barred from taking action in enforcement of the CC decision. Was the finding against you sufficient? Of course not. It was weak-kneed and timid. But you need to disclose it in situations like this, and shouldn't wait until someone mentions that you had a finding of battlefield conduct against you. I'm surprised you're resisting that. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Are YOU serious? I'm not resisting anything. Go ahead, explain how the case wasn't botched. ++Lar: t/c 04:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ... and I'd be delighted to explore the loused-up-edness of the CC case on this page if I felt it would be the slightest bit constructive, which it won't. I have mentioned one of its major deficiencies. Your mileage may vary. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Just so it's not lost in the discussion above, please note that I've responded to three questions about this case (one from ScottyBerg and two from Lar), over on the questions pages. Other than that, this probably isn't the best place for me to comment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe you to be a valuable member ArbCom
Your Arbcom work has been very consistent and you have maintained clean hands. Those items might seem like faint praise on the face of it, but the high value is set by the relative scarcity. Birgitte SB  01:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)