Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Newyorkbrad

I present myself as a candidate for reelection to the Arbitration Committee.

It is hard to believe that it has already been three years since I was elected as an arbitrator. The community was extraordinarily kind to me in the 2007 election, and I have done my best to live up to the trust that many of you placed in me. I have worked to serve our encyclopedia, the editors who create and maintain that encyclopedia, and the outside public who rely on Wikipedia millions of times every day.

My views on the issues that will face the Arbitration Committee over the next two years, and my thoughts looking back on my service during the past three years, will almost certainly come through much more clearly in responding to questions than in any lengthy statement I could prepare in advance. I look forward to answering your questions, both on the official questions page and in any other forums that may arise. Thank you for your consideration.

(I've been asked to include in my statement a confirmation regarding any use of alternate accounts. Other than a dozen or so IP edits in 2005 or 2006 before I registered, I have edited only as Newyorkbrad.)

• Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)

v t e Arbitration Committee Election 2019 candidate: Newyorkbrad Candidate statement Questions for the candidate Discuss this candidate

1. Skills/interests: Which of the following tasks will you be prepared and qualified to perform regularly as an arbitrator? Your responses should indicate how your professional/educational background makes you suitable to the tasks.
   • (a) reviewing cases, carefully weighing up the evidence, and voting and commenting on proposed decisions;
   • (b) drafting proposed decisions for consideration by other arbitrators;
   • (c) voting on new requests for arbitration (on the requests page) and motions for the clarification or modification of prior decisions;
   • (d) considering appeals from banned or long-term-blocked users, such as by serving on the Ban Appeals Subcommittee or considering the Subcommittee's recommendations;
   • (e) overseeing the allocation and use of checkuser and oversight permissions, including the vetting and community consultation of candidates for them, and/or serving on the Audit Subcommittee or reviewing its recommendations;
   • (f) running checkuser checks (arbitrators generally are given access to CU if they request it) in connection with arbitration cases or other appropriate requests;
   • (g) carrying out oversight or edit suppression requests (arbitrators are generally also given OS privileges);
   • (h) drafting responses to inquiries and concerns forwarded to the Committee by editors;
   • (i) interacting with the community on public pages such as arbitration and other talk pages;
   • (j) performing internal tasks such as coordinating the sometimes-overwhelming arbcom-l mailing list traffic.

   A: As it happens, this is a list of arbitrator tasks that I prepared for the questions page in the 2008 election, so it's only fair that I should now answer this question myself. Although the nature of the committee's workload has changed a bit over the years, the above remains a pretty fair summary of the types of tasks the arbitrators are called on to perform, and also gives a sense of the workload we undertake in performing it.

   If reelected, I think I'll contribute to the committee's work in 2011 and 2012 pretty much the same ways that I have during my current term. With respect to (a), I've written a number of significant case decisions (I haven't actually counted, but I believe I've written the third most decisions in the committee's history, although the number of full-fledged cases in which there are decisions to be written has declined over the course of my term). With respect to (b) and (c), I've been a fully active member of the committee in these areas; part of my approach is not simply to note "support" or "oppose" on each paragraph of the workshop or the proposed decision page where another arbitrator is the drafter, but also to provide comments on proposals that provide feedback for my colleagues, the parties, and other interested editors. I've also contributed internally to the ban appeals discussions within the committee (item (d)). I aim to be more active in this area if reelected.

   I've been less active regarding checkuser- and oversight-related work (items (e), (f), and (g)); I've commented in our candidate vetting procedures and handled a few checkuser and oversight needs from time to time, but these tasks are remote from my core strengths and I have left most of this work to my colleagues.

   I think I've done my share of responding to e-mails (item (h)) and at least my share of participating in arbitration-related discussions on-wiki (item (i)); this is very important to me, as it is how I first learned about many aspects of the arbitration process myself, and it's also essential to assuring parties and other interested editors that their input is being heard and considered, both within cases and more broadly. Finally, item (j), though critically important, is not something that I have specialized in, though I have occasionally circulated reminders of pending items that require the committee's attention; the need to improve the Arbitration Committee's "paperwork" flow remains a constant and while we have made some progress, I hope that some of the newcomers to the committee will bring with them strong skills in this area.

   In response to the last part of the question, in the case of a sitting arbitrator such as myself, my record during my current term is probably a better indicator of how I'll perform if reelected than anything in my outside life. For what it's worth, though, I'm a litigation attorney in Manhattan. This gives me some experience with reviewing evidence and writing about it, as well as insight into legal aspects of cases and discussions—but we always emphasize that Wikipedia arbitration is not a court and should not be viewed or treated as an unduly legalistic process.

2. Stress: How will you be able to cope with the stress of being an arbitrator, potentially including on- and off-wiki threats and abuse, and attempts to embarrass you by the public "outing" of personal information?

   A: At this point, after three years on the committee, I think I am pretty well used to the stressful (though hopefully not blasé about the rewarding) aspects of being an arbitrator. With regard to potential "outing," my real-world identity is now fully disclosed on-wiki; I've been quoted in The New York Times about my work as an arbitrator, I've blogged about it, and a search of my real name pulls up lots of Wikipedia-related pages in my first few Google hits, so that is no longer an issue. I did, however, go through a stressful situation that led to my taking some time away from Wikipedia for a few months in 2008; I can discuss that in a bit more detail in the additional questions if anyone is interested in what happened.

3. Principles: Assume the four principles linked to below are directly relevant to the facts of a new case. Would you support or oppose each should it be proposed in a case you are deciding, and why? A one- or two-sentence answer is sufficient for each. Please regard them in isolation rather than in the context of their original cases.
   • (a) "Private correspondence"

     A:The general principle as stated is a correct one, although respect for the privacy of private communications is part of the rationale for it, along with the copyright policy that is cited.

   • (b) "Responsibility"

     A:Again, the general principle is correct, although if this came up again I might copyedit some of the wording, as I can envision some exceptions.

   • (c) "Perceived legal threats"

     A:This is one of mine, actually, originally from the workshop in the first Alastair Haines case. I think it has held up well, and it has now been incorporated into the relevant policy page, which is probably the best sign that a principle initiated in one of our decisions has received acceptance in the broader community.

   • (d) "Outing"

     A:I agree with this, but the last sentence should not be overlooked.

4. Strict versus lenient: Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, would you side more with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions, or with those who support a greater number of bans and desysoppings? What factors might generally influence you? Under what circumstances would you consider desysopping an admin without a prior ArbCom case?

   A:As the question anticipates, the ready answer to the first two subquestions here—but the only fair answer that can really be given—is that every case must be judged on its own merits. The factors that I and other arbitrators consider in deciding what sanction to impose on an editor, on the spectrum from overlooking a minor or isolated breach of decorum (no sanction), to a caution or admonition, to a restriction or topic-ban, to a full ban from editing Wikipedia, are precisely those that common sense would dictate should be considered. They include matters such as the severity of the misconduct, whether it occurred frequently or over a long period of time or was an isolated incident, and whether there is evidence (such as comments made during the case or problem-free editing since the misconduct) that the editor has reformed his or her behavior so that the problem will not be repeated.

   With regard to "strict versus lenient," I have acquired something of a reputation as being on the "lenient" side of the scale by comparison with some of my colleagues. As I've said more than once, from the point of view of a banned user, Wikipedia is transformed into "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit—except you," and that is not something we should take lightly. On the other hand, we do neither the encyclopedia nor the community any favors when we keep one disruptive or hostile or strident editor around and the result is that other editors leave the topic or the project as a result. Thus, I've voted for bans when I thought a difficult editor had run out of chances, and I've even voted for some bans that one or more of the other arbitrators have opposed. It's all about weighing the evidence in every case, and balancing, and sometimes making a difficult judgment call about what is proportionate or not. The fact that reasonable minds may differ on these issues is one of the several reasons that we are an 18-member committee rather than a single arbitrator or a handful of them.

   Similar considerations apply to desysopping. I will vote to desysop (that is, revoke an administrator's status as an administrator) when I'm convinced it's in the best interests of the encyclopedia and the community to do so. This will occur when the administrator's use of the tools, or overall editing, violates the relevant policies and standards seriously or repeatedly, and there are insufficient mitigating factors to convince me that the problem is isolated and will not recur.

   I wrote more about these issues a couple of years ago on the talkpage of this essay, and those interested can read there for some additional thoughts. (The essay and its talkpage have been archived, and the specific examples in my comments are older, and my comments veered close to tl;dr territory, which I'm trying my best to avoid on this page; but the essential issues are as timely as ever.)

5. ArbCom and policies: Do you agree or disagree with this statement: "ArbCom should not be in the position of forming new policies, or otherwise creating, abolishing or amending policy. ArbCom should rule on the underlying principles of the rules. If there is an area of the rules that leaves something confused, overly vague, or seemingly contrary to common good practice, then the issue should be pointed out to the community". Please give reasons.

   A:The Arbitration Committee is elected to resolve disputes rather than to establish policy. That being said, the committee's decisions will always have some influence on policy and guidelines, in a variety of ways: by dictating what types of editor and administrator conduct are considered acceptable, and indicating through our sanctions decisions under what circumstances and how stringently a given policy is enforced; by honing, in the principles set forth in our decisions, our views concerning interpretation of policies or how policies are to be construed in conjunction with one another; by identifying areas in which policies are unclear, and calling for the community to clarify them. As a practical matter, the Arbitration Committee will rarely, if ever, invent a policy out of whole cloth, as opposed to filling a gap. (Although, interestingly, I remember at least one time, before I was an arbitrator, when the committee seemingly invented a new policy for the purpose of resolving a case, and no one seemed to have notice or complained at all—probably because the newly established principle was what the community would have decided anyway if anyone had previously thought of the issue. So every rule has exceptions.)

   As for the last sentence of the question, I have included in several committee decisions I've written a remedy calling for the community to revisit a policy or guidelines page with a view toward clarifying unclear and disputed issues. Sometimes the result has been a useful discussion that effectively clarified the disputed issue; other times, the call for discussion has been completely disregarded, which I suppose reflects community satisfaction with the status quo, or at least the absence of anyone sufficiently upset with the status quo to convene the discussion.

6. Conduct/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?

   A:The Arbitration Committee correctly refrains from deciding disputed issues of article content, but can properly insist that affected editors develop a binding mechanism for resolving the dispute when the usual dispute resolution methods have failed, and in extreme circumstances can impose such a mechanism. In some cases, the committee can also, without itself deciding a content dispute, take notice in deciding a case that a consensus has developed in favor of a particular position and that one or more editors are being disruptive by failing (without a good explanation such as changed circumstances) to respect the consensus.

7. Success in handling cases: Nominate the cases from 2010 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.

   A:As an aide-memoire for readers and my fellow candidates, a listing of past decisions, from the inception of the committee through the present, can be found here.

   As a point of interest, during 2010 to date, there have been only 12 full-fledged cases. This contrasts with, say, 2007, when there were 91 cases, of which at least 80 had full decisions. The major reason for this decline is that a lot of disputes that would have come to arbitration in years past are now resolved by administrator action or community sanction. (For example, it often happens these days that an problematic editor is adjudged incorrigible and community-banned, or indefinitely blocked by an administrator, as the result of an ANI discussion of his or her editing, under circumstances that would have led to an arbitration case a few years ago. This observation is a separate question from whether the change is a good or a bad thing.)

   One case that I think we did a good job on this year is the Alastair Haines 2 case, in which I wrote the final decision with participation by SirFozzie. As this case unfolded, it became clear that a particular editor needed to be separated from Wikipedia, but that this needed to be effectuated in a way that allowed him to depart with dignity and did not result in the on-wiki dispute escalating to an off-wiki one, which for a time appeared to be a very real and worrisome possibility. The decision accomplished its goals, and I wish its approach could be followed in the similar situations that arise on ANI from time to time.

   The ChildOfMidnight, Asgardian, and Stevertigo cases each moved smoothly to a correct result, which in each case was the banning from Wikipedia of an editor who, despite what I believe in each case were good intentions, was unable despite many chances to conform to one or more of our core policies. In each case the result made me sad, because each of these long-time and I believe well-meaning editors had something to offer us, but at some point it is the committee's job to say "enough is enough," and we concluded that enough was enough in these instances.

   Gibraltar and Race and intelligence were cases in which we ultimately reached sensible conclusions, but we took much too long in doing it. The disputes in both of these appear poised to return to our agenda at some point soon, so I probably should not say too much more about their merits.

   The Climate change case is probably a bit too fresh in everyone's mind to lend itself to a dispassionate post mortem. In any event, I'm sure I'll be asked a few (or a few dozen) questions about it anyhow, so I'll wait for those.

8. 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?

   A:Three hardy perennials. The first is that we must always push to resolve our cases in a reasonably expeditious manner, consistent of course with allowing sufficient time for editors to present evidence and for us to study the case and become well-informed. Pretty much every candidate for the Arbitration Committee campaigns on a platform of "cases need to be decided faster," and I was no exception. In the cases I've drafted, I've done my best to keep things moving (in my first two weeks on the committee, I wrote three decisions, which I assume is some sort of a record, though I haven't been able to keep up that pace). As I've noted just above, the typical full-fledged case that ArbCom decisions in 2010 is sometimes an order of magnitude more complex than the typical case of 2005. But there are too many cases that have taken too long, and we need a dedicated group of newcomers to join with the continuing and (I hope) returning arbitrators to keep things moving. I will add that the problem is always greater in the second half of a calendar year than the first half, simply because of the attrition rate among arbitrators (meaning both ones who leave the committee, and ones who are still members but get worn down over time). We have been discussing some ways in which drafting arbitrators can proactively lead discussion on case pages and thereby lead to faster, and perhaps in some circumstances even better informed, decisions.

   Second, when I ran for arbitrator three years ago, one of my hopes was to simplify the arbitration process. I contributed to that a little bit by rewriting some instructions to make them clearer (although, thinking back, I did most of that when I was a clerk before I became an arbitrator). However, instead of the process becoming simpler, over time, a series of procedural innovations have been implemented, each of which individually was a worthwhile improvement, but all of which collectively have made the arbitration pages an at-times impenetrable thicket. I myself am not always sure whether a given request should be submitted as an arbitration enforcement request or as an appeal to the committee or as a ban appeal or as a clarification or as an amendment. And I've been an arbitrator for almost three years and was a clerk before that—so how are newcomers supposed to feel? Unfortunately, short of ditching the entire set of pages and starting over, I don't have many suggestions for how to simplify, simplify. There will be a substantial group of new arbitrators coming aboard in January: perhaps they will have valuable suggestions.

   Third, we are seeking to improve the processing of appeals from banned and long-term blocked users. Even if the answer is "sorry, no unblock at this time," as it often is, the person is entitled to a reasonably prompt answer.

   Depending on the number of incumbents who run and the number of those who are reelected, about half the arbitrators will be new to the position on January 1, and I am sure the newcomers will have valuable innovations to propose.

This section is for individual questions asked to this specific candidate. Each eligible voter may ask a limit of one "individual" question by posting it below. The question should:

• be clearly worded and brief, with a limit of 75 words in display mode;
• be specific to this candidate (the same individual question should not be posted en masse onto candidates' pages);
• not duplicate other questions (editors are encouraged to discuss the merging of similar questions);

Election coordinators will either remove questions that are inconsistent with the guidelines or will contact the editor to ask for an amendment. Editors are, of course, welcome to post questions to candidates' user talk pages at any time.

Please add the question under the line below using the following format:

1. Question from TML: It seems that in the last couple of years you've taken a number of mini-Wikibreaks due to real-life events. Do you expect this trend to continue in the next couple of years?

   A:Congratulations on asking the first question. In fact, you located my questions page before I even transcluded the page. Unlike in an RfA, that doesn't mean we strike your input and you have to start over.

   With regard to your question, I assume that you are referring to occasional break announcements I've posted in 2009 and 2010, rather than the longer break I took in 2008 (which I will discuss later on when, as I anticipate, someone asks me about it).

   I don't think I've taken a particularly large number of breaks last year or this year, as compared with the typical editor or the typical arbitrator. In real life, I'm a litigation attorney with some international cases, and I take some vacations just like anyone else, so sometimes there will be a few days when I'm travelling with relatively little online time or access. I don't recall too many periods where this has resulted in lengthy inactivity as an arbitrator, certainly not to the extent of impairing my value as a member of the committee. I'm pretty sure my "attendance" record, if there was such a thing, would be pretty good.

   Perhaps you believe that I am taking relatively frequent wikibreaks based on the availability notes I sometimes post on my talkpage. I try my best to respond promptly to questions and comments on my talkpage, whether on arbitration matters or anything else, so I will sometimes post a note that I will be away and responses will be delayed, even if I am just going to be away for the weekend. I do this as a courtesy so that someone who posts to my talkpage (e.g.) on Friday night will know that I may not be able to respond until Monday. I don't know that an occasional weekend off would qualify even as a "mini-Wikibreak," and I don't think anyone would have even noticed these absences if I hadn't posted these occasional notes about them. And half the time when I am expecting to take a weekend off from editing I cheat anyway, at least by checking in on my Blackberry.

2. Question from MLauba: Copyright issues have recently been on the spotlight on quite a few occasions. Beyond the endemic confusion with plagiarism (and the debate on what plagiarism means to Wikipedia), what is your view on where Wikipedia stands today in relation to content copied or only marginally altered without permission, both on the cleanup aspect but also on the handling of editors who have introduced the material, often unaware of the consequences?

   I think there is an increasing recognition of something that should have been clear all along, which is that our basic foundational content policy—free content whenever possible, fair-use content when justified, and everything properly attributed—applies equally to our textual content as our images and other files. (Of course, the parallel can only go so far; there are inherent differences between the two types of content as well.) As in other areas, there has been attention drawn over the years to the desirability of upgrading our standards in this area, both by our fellow Wikipedians, by our responsible critics, and in some cases by more strident critics of Wikipedia seeking to discredit the project. Problematically copied content needs to be identified and appropriately revised, whether by adding quotation marks or citations, by revision of the text, or by deletion, as warranted in each individual case. Of course, there will always be borderline situations where editors can in disagree in good faith about how much quoting or copying or paraphrasing is too much. I would think that in a truly borderline case, it may be best to rewrite the material rather than bicker about whether it may be at the borderline of acceptability.

   With regard to the treatment of editors who introduce copyright-problematic material, the primary response to good-faith editors needs to be one of education: pointing them to our policies in this area and to any specific instances where they may have violated the policies, and enlisting them where possible in corrective measures as well as a commitment to improved compliance going forward. Good faith, rather than bad faith, should be assumed in these situations, as in most others, until evidence demonstrates the contrary. Of course, where there is a demonstrated or ongoing inability or refusal to comply with policies, harsher steps may then be required, just as we eventually block serial uploaders of copyrighted images who mislabel them as free and refuse to stop after warnings. Finally, as with image-patrol specialists, the role of dedicated editors who seek to identify and solve copyright and related issues with regard to text content should be appreciated by their colleagues on the project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. Question from ScottyBerg: The Climate Change arbitration has been criticized by a large number of participants of all philosophical viewpoints on these grounds (among others): it took far too long; lack of participation in the workshop process by arbitrators; lack of guidance to parties during the workshop phase; arbitrators failed to provide direction as to issues that needed to be addressed and were generally uncommunicative. Can you address these concerns?

   A.I agree with many of the concerns, though not all. This is a case in which I and other arbitrators started with the determined intent to reach a well-reasoned decision in a reasonable amount of time, and then we didn't make it happen.

   When this case started, I posted a set of procedures for the case, which were intended to promote clarity and expedition. I posted a deadline for evidence (which ought to be done more often), and given that we had concerns that the scope of the case was unclear, I also posted a request that editors list the questions they thought should be addressed during the case.

   For several days, oddly enough, there was very little evidence posted. I actually wondered for a brief interlude whether the idea that arbitration was actually about to happen (the requests for arbitration had been pending for a long time and had looked like they might be declined) had concentrated all the parties' attention on the need to improve their behavior. The answer to that, it turned out, was no: the evidence and other contributions to the case pages soon turned out to be enormous in size and unusually (even for an arbitration case) vehement in invective. But the arbitrators, the three designated drafters, rolled up our sleeves and went to work. As the evidence kept coming and coming, it took longer than we'd hoped.

   The drafters and others collaborated on a draft decision. (Risker, Rlevse, and I have very different writing styles, so anyone could probably have figured out who wrote what, although for awhile there seemed to be a move to give me credit and/or blame for the whole thing.) Reaction to the posted proposed decision was mixed, with the overall view being that part of the decision was good, and parts contained errors, but that on the whole the decision did not go far enough. I concentrated on fixing the identified problems, mostly by correcting some inaccuracies or alleged inaccuracies, and by rewriting and copyediting sections that some editors felt were not clear. In the meantime, though, user conduct on the case pages continued to be unusually nasty even for the neighborhood of an arbitration case.

   At some point, a couple of the arbitrators suggested that what was necessary was topic-banning all or most of the parties from the entire area. My initial reaction was that I hated this idea: we were dealing with a group including some extremely knowledgeable and dedicated editors, and it would be a loss to bar them from contributing on a topic they cared so much about. I waited to see if another, less drastic proposal to solve the problem would emerge, but none ever did, and I could hear my colleagues asking me (even if they were too polite to say it out loud), "we don't love it either, but after three months of this, do you have a better idea?" Alas, I didn't, and what eventuated was the decision that ultimately passed, although my comments on the /proposed decision page will reflect my observations and votes (at time supporting, at time opposing) on each paragraph of the decision.

   Looking back, a couple of observations. First, I think that a couple of the procedural suggestions I proposed at the beginning of this case had merit, but I should have tried a less complicated and sprawling and nasty case for the test-drive. (Although, to be fair, I thought that some procedural innovations were needed precisely because the case was going to be complicated and sprawling and nasty.) Second, we took three requests for arbitration and rolled them into one because the subjects were generally related; we might have been better off after all if we'd taken them as three separate cases. Third, yes, it took too long. Fourth, I did try to provide input to the case participants, particularly on the proposed decision talkpage, some of which was memorably not well received, and I know some of the other arbitrators did well. You may be right that similar input would have been useful a little earlier at the workshop phase as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   (Note: There's now further discussion of the Climate change case in my responses to Lar's last questions on the talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

4. Question from Shooterwalker: I appreciate your thorough answers on questions 6/7. You said that when policy/content RFCs have demonstrably failed, ArbCom can help those editors develop their own dispute resolution process. Would you care to elaborate on remedies that ArbCom (past or future) can apply to design a more effective dispute resolution mechanism that won't be hijacked into just another BATTLEGROUND (leading to more anger, wasted energy, and probably another ArbCom incident)? Shooterwalker (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   The canonical example here is probably the Ireland article names case, where the committee directed that if a renewed community discussion process did not lead to decision on the naming dispute that led to the case, that a panel of three administrators lead a process that would yield a binding decision. (This remedy structure was adopted from a proposal I'd made on the Workshop page). After a little delay, the discussion did not yield a consensus result, so a poll was conducted to decide whether Ireland would be the page about the country or about the island, and this eventually led to a decision being made about what the articles are to be called, at least for the time being. The ultimate result did not satisfy everyone, but at some point, a decision had to be made one way or the other. Similarly, in the Macedonia case we directed that a discussion take place about the use of the country name "Macedonia," although I don't think that discussion shifted many existing views of the issue. There was a similar directive in the West Bank - Judea and Samaria decision (although I was recused in that case). Another example is the Date delinking case, where the decision put "mass date delinking" on hold until there was community consensus about how and when to link and delink dates; a few months later, a degree of consensus was reached, and a motion was adopted allowing the process to go ahead. The general formulation, as we wrote the principle in the Ireland case, is:

   "The occurrence of protracted, apparently insoluble disputes—whether they involve conduct, content, or policy—is contrary to the purposes of the project and damaging to its health. The chief purpose of the Arbitration Committee is to protect the project from the disruption caused by such disputes, and it has the authority to issue binding resolutions in keeping with that purpose.

   The Committee has traditionally concentrated its attention on conduct disputes, and has avoided issuing binding rulings that would directly resolve matters of content or policy, leaving those questions to the community at large. However, in cases where the community has proven unable to resolve those questions using the methods normally available to it, and where the lack of resolution results in unacceptable disruption to the project, the Committee may impose an exceptional method for reaching a decision." Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Discussion continued on talk page.

5. Question from Chaser: OK, I'll bite. What was the reason for the long absence in 2008? What do you anticipate about something like this happening again?

   A. The short answer to your second question is no, this situation is not going to come up again, because my identity and participation on Wikipedia are now widely known. I'll provide the full history here when I catch up on all these questions in the next day or two. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6. Question from Stifle: Are you aware that running for re-election to ArbCom is a sign of insanity? :) Stifle (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   A. Well, that was obviously meant as a flippant question, but I'll give it a serious answer. Of course there have been moments when I've questioned my decision to run again. Just a few nights ago, a particularly obnoxious e-mail come in to the committee, and on Gtalk with one of my colleagues (whose term isn't up this year), I commented, "remind me why I am about to campaign for the right to go through another two years of this?" and of course this brought a sympathetic chuckle. Nonetheless, this role has its rewards as well, and if the voters conclude that despite whatever mistakes I've made, on balance I've done a decent job for the past three years, I don't think there's anything wrong with offering to do it for awhile longer.

   The "insane" thing about my Wikipedia career, I think, is not specifically that I've served as an arbitrator, which (if I say so myself) is probably a reasonably good fit for my skill-set; it's that I've let myself get so totally diverted from the thing that I came here to do, which was to create content. As it happens, I had a reminder about this tonight; I was a member of an Inn of Court team that was assigned to re-create a historical trial; we depicted the trial of Alger Hiss, to an audience of about 100. Someone prepared a handout with the biographies of the key participants in the Hiss case, including the two trial judges (Samuel Kaufman and Henry W. Goddard)—and as I read through those two bios I realized that they were reprints of the Wikipedia articles on Kaufman and Goddard, which I wrote. (I wrote them as a newish editor, and should work on them some more in 2010.) This was a good reminder that people really do sometimes use even our more obscure and less contentious articles as resources, and that after all, at the end of the day the article content is the fundamental reason we're here.

   So I don't think it's insane that I'm running for reelection as an arbitrator; but I do think it will be misguided, at least, if I don't also keep the promise I've made to myself several times before and start spending significantly more time in mainspace as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7. Question from Barts1a: If you are elected to a position on the Arbitration Committee; How would you change the process to eliminate the clear lack of candidates this year?

   A:If I may clarify the question, do you mean how would I change the arbitration process itself, or how would I change the arbitation election process? If you're referring to the former, please see my answer to question 8 above; if we could find away of making some of the things I describe there happen, it would improve the whole environment of the arbitration pages and hence might (I say might) make the arbitrator position more appealing. If you're referring to the latter, I don't have any specific changes to the election process to suggest; the process resulted from RfCs that were held last year and again this year with reasonably widespread participation and a clear consensus in favor of the system that's being used.

   I will add that although I hope we will have more candidates for election before the nominations close, and that the candidates will all be highly qualified, I think that having relatively few editors want to run for arbitrator is far from the most serious staffing problem we are facing at the moment. The Arbitration Committee is prominent within the community because it deals with the most intractible disputes that confront the project, because it is involved in some of the most sensitive situations, and because it is the subject of the widely publicized elections each year. But, although we could not get along very well without a core group of qualified and dedicated arbitrators, at the end of the day it makes little difference whether the committee contains 9 or 11 or 13 or the current quota of 18 members. (I think there's pretty much of a consensus on the committee that 18 is too many; its greatest virtue is that it anticipates the terrible attrition rate we have suffered in recent years, with at least 50% of the arbitrators not serving out their terms. Then again, before we bemoan the arbitrator attrition rate, I wonder if a 50% attition rate might apply just as much to virtually any other role on Wikipedia. Look up, say, an RfA or an ANI archive from 2007 or 2008 and ask yourself what percentage of the editors on the page are still actively editing.)

   I hope very much that we will have a slew of new candidates within the next few days, creating a pool from whom the community can elect 11 highly qualified arbitrators. But I also hope that some of our most dedicated and experienced editors will pitch in to help address the crisis of morale that seems currently to exist in the featured articles processes; and I hope that a few dedicated and experienced administrators will address the current lack of staffing on the unblock-l mailing list, which is a major interface for potential new editors running into IP blocks, for example, who if not answered promptly will wander off and never get a chance to contribute, as well as editors with legitimate unblock requests that they are entitled at least to have considered. So I think the need for more potential arbitrators, which is very real, may be a symptom of the need for experienced Wikipedians to roll up their sleeves and pitch in a variety of ways as a consequence of the turnover we constantly encounter in all roles throughout the project.

   I may or may not have answered your original question. If I haven't covered your specific point, please feel free to post a follow-up. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

8. Question from BorisG (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC) It's no secret that there is a perception in sections of the community that admins (and especially arbitrators) have evolved into some sort of aristocracy and are getting away with things other editors are sanctioned for. Do you see this as a problem? What do you think ArbCom should do about it, if anything? - BorisG (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   A:I'm not sure precisely what any of the arbitrators are perceived as getting away with, but that's neither here nor there. As a matter of principle, I think that arbitrators, administrators, and experienced users in general should aspire at least to hold up the same standards they would expect other editors to adhere to. In fact, I've included that as a principle in some committee decisions I've drafted. I do think it's reasonable, when deciding whether to sanction an editor (whether in an arbitration decision or an ANI discussion or whatever) to take into account whether an instance of bad behavior represents an isolated incident in a long career of productive and appropriate editing. But the appropriate norms of behavior apply to everyone. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

9. Question from Moni3: do you feel arbitrators have any duty, responsibility, or should use any other influence to set a tone for the language register and the way editors communicate with each other? Beyond being a "good example" (Ha! *chortle*), can arbitrators actively work to improve the way Wikipedians discuss and handle their conflicts about content and personality differences? --Moni3 (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   A:Don't belittle yourself; your contributions to Wikipedia are significant and appreciated. As to the question, I have always tried to maintain civility and collegiality in all my posts on Wikipedia and my Wikipedia-related communications. (As a sidenote, it is said that there are lots of people who are perfectly pleasant in everyday life, who develop rough edges to their online personas, perhaps because there's no immediate in-your-face feedback online when one is discourteous. I've been told that I am one of the relatively few people who is much more calm and measured online than I am in my everyday life, to the point that my best friends tell me that this Newyorkbrad character on Wikipedia cannot possibly be me.) I feel that our community norms of civility and the avoidance of personal attacks have an important role in our working together toward building an encyclopedia in an atmosphere of mutual respect. For this reason, when I see a dispute being inflamed or perpetuated on-wiki through the use of inflammatory language, strident rhetoric, and personal attacks, I will often intervene to try to calm tempers and bring attention back to the issue at hand. That being said, asking people to keep civil leads inevitably to the question of how one reacts when they are not, and in that regard, it is important to bear in mind that everyone (even an arbitrator) may lose his or her temper once in awhile, particularly in light of the provocations that sometimes exist. I wouldn't want everybody to speak and write like Newyorkbrad—heck, I reread my posts sometimes a few days after I posted them and I think that even I shouldn't write like Newyorkbrad—but I wish that fewer people habitually posted on-wiki like so-and-so or so-and-so either. So I agree that we could stand improvement of the tone of some of the discussions around here, and that arbitrators should do their best to set a good example in that regard; but I don't know that arbitrators qua arbitrators are equipped to actually enforce the community norms in this area except in extreme cases.

   Discussion of this answer is located at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2010/Candidates/Newyorkbrad/Questions#Discussion_of_question_by_Moni3

10. Question from Franamax Hi NYB and good luck! The seemingly glacial pace with which ArbCom moves is a source of frustration and is often explained as the difficulty involved in getting a group of people spread around the world to give their input. In relation to your peers, would you rate yourself as better or worse than average at providing quick (and defninitive) responses on the mailing list and on case pages? Franamax (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A:Significantly better than average in the cases on which I'm the main drafter; a bit better than average (with a few exceptions) in other on-wiki participation; probably about average among the active arbitrators for responding to mailing list posts. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

11. Question from Anythingyouwant: Suppose an allegedly disruptive user appears before ArbCom. Is it fair or efficient for ArbCom and/or accusing editors to cite a boatload of diffs while refusing to specify one specific diff as an example that the "defendant" and everyone else can focus on; and likewise is it fair or efficient if an Arbitrator merely asserts that an editor continues to be disruptive without citing any diff or quote at all?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A:Once again, it depends on the specific case. If the allegation is that a specific diff or small group of diffs reflects outrageous behavior, then that diff or group of diffs needs to be specifically cited. But if the allegation is poor behavior such as chronic edit-warring or incivility over a long period of time, then "a boatload of diffs" may be an important part of the evidence. There have been cases in which a large number of problem edits or posts resulted in sanctions, even though no one specific one would have brought the editor to arbitration. As for your second question, an arbitrator alleging disruption is generally referring to something specific, either directly or by reference to another editor's posting in the statements or evidence. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

12. Question by Rschen7754: Provided that you are elected again, you will be an arbitrator for 5 years. Do you anticipate burnout or exhaustion towards the end of those 5 years? Will this affect your work as an arbitrator? --Rschen7754 22:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A:If reelected, I expect to serve my full two-year term. I plan to avoid burnout or exhaustion by pacing myself and by leavening my arbitration work with mainspace and other work, as I mentioned above. The increased number of strong candidates in this election confirms that I should have a number of dedicated, experienced Wikipedians as colleagues on the committee, which should help alleviate the workload burden on any individual arbitrator. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

13. Question from ScienceApologist I haven't done a close analysis, but from what I've seen it seems that you often abstain from voting on proposed decisions, moreso than your fellow arbitrators. Do you agree that this is the case? If the answer is yes, can you explain why you do this and whether you think other arbitrators should be abstaining more often with you or proposing better decisions? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A: Whenever I oppose or abstain on a proposal, I usually comment on the proposed decision explaining why. (I explain many of the reasons for or nuances of my support votes as well.) Thus, if you're interested in the reason I abstained on any particular item, there may be a rationale available. In general, if I abstain on a given proposal it may mean "I support part of this paragraph but have qualms about other paragraphs" or perhaps "I agree with the overall thrust of this proposal but not with all the details of the wording." Sometimes, of course, I will propose an alternative paragraph of the decision for voting (in which case my explanation of vote on proposal X will read either "support; second choice, prefer X.1" or "abstain; prefer X.1" or "oppose; X.1 offered in lieu", depending on how acceptable X would be if X.1 doesn't pass). There are times, of course, when I've offered the alternative on the workshop or in other discussion. But there's a question of tactics and of collegial relations in terms of how many alternative proposals to offer in a case that another arbitrator has drafted, and sometimes there is little value to posting an alternative if I know that all or most of the other arbitrators support the proposal as presented. There are times when I've used an abstention to interpose a concern about the proposal as written, with the hope that the drafter will adapt the wording to overcome my objection; in these circumstances sometimes an abstention, at least on an interim basis, may be more collegial than an outright oppose. Another option I've used more often lately is to propose copyedits to a proposal that has been posted, typically to address an objection to wording rather than the substance of the proposal as framed; this is always done with the express declaration that the copyedit is offered as an alternative only and that any arbitrator may revert to the original.... And, all of that being said, looking back there are probably a few situations where I should have made a hard choice and voted up or down rather than abstain, even where abstaining did not change the result. (In other words, I will use a greater effort to abstain from abstaining. Although there is historical precedent for New Yorkers to abstain more often than others.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

14. Question from Skomorokh In light of the difficulties surrounding the May 2010 CU/OS elections, how do you think Checkusers and Oversighters should be selected in the years to come?

    A. I think the system we used for the most recent appointments this fall resulted in the selection of good candidates in a fashion that was acceptable to the community and minimized drama, so I am comfortable sticking with it for the foreseeable future. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

15. Question: In your candidate statement, you refer to your thoughts looking back on my service during the past three years. As the candidate with the most service on ArbCom, can you indicate how much things have changed and/or stayed the same over that period, and how you have adapted and changed over those three years, and whether you would be able to continue to adapt and change over the coming two years if elected? Carcharoth (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC) As disclosed here, this is part of a set of discussions on 'previous service record' that I am initiating with all current and former arbitrators about their candidacies.[reply]

A:The biggest change in the committee's work in the past three years is the change in our workload from too many full-blown arbitration cases to arguably too few cases, as more and more disputes are resolved through other means, with the bulk of our work shifting to amendment and clarification requests and ban appeals.

The biggest change in me over the past few years is one that was inevitable: the change in my status from new kid on the block ("who is this guy complaining on ANI about bad blocks? do you think he'll have an RfA someday?"), to freshfaced newbie arbitrator being asked to change the world (including parts of the world that didn't need to be changed), to now being perceived as a senior member of the inner establishment. I would like to think that at heart I'm the same person and the same editor that I was when I started (except for being more knowledgeable about how the site works) or at least that my heart is in the same place and that I haven't become jaded any more than absolutely necessary ... but that's not really for me to say. I supposed I've adapted to becoming something of a public figure, identified by my real name, and since I plan to do more speaking and writing in the next few years, that won't change.

I certainly expect to adapt and change some more in the next two years, including by taking to heart some of the feedback I've received during this election (I've read the comments about me in every voter guide very carefully), and by keeping abreast of developments in the encyclopedia, the community, and the world around us. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to posting above, editors may ask me more questions on the talkpage to this questions page. This may be used for questions or follow-ups that do not satisfy the rules for questions on this "official" page. I expect to answer all good-faith questions on both pages, although it may take a little time to finish them all, especially some of the more wide-ranging and philosophical ones.

In prior years, I have heard of IRC or Skype discussions or question periods involving the candidates. If anyone is minded to set something like this up, I would be glad to try to participate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]