User talk:Newyorkbrad

Thought you might be interested.

Hi, I noticed that you commented about editors not being on site anymore like Verbal on the PD page. So with that in mind I thought you might also be interested in knowing that Hipocrite recently just slapped a retired template on his pages. We lost a lot of good, long term editors with this case. Do you think it was worth it to name some of them like the case did? I think that maybe we cut off too much in this case. Sorry, I'm just sad to see so many names I'm used to seeing around doing good things depart like this. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for calling this development to my attention. It is an unfortunate one.

As one of the initial drafters of the proposed decision, it was my hope that the decision would not need to focus on naming and criticizing and sanctioning a large number of individual editors. (For those who have followed my performance as an arbitrator over the past two-plus years, that will not be shocking.) However, as the case developed, it became obvious that in some respects, the behavior of many editors surrounding this particular dispute was continuing to inflame the situation. In that context, several of my colleagues opined that we needed to take a different and more expansive approach to reducing the bitterness and hostility surrounding this entire topic area.

The ultimate decision, as you've seen, topic-banned a significant number of editors from the climate change topic area. I don't think anyone will doubt that this was not my first choice of how to solve the problems here (and you will have seen that I did not favor the bans in a couple of specific instances). I never like taking "Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and turning it into "Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit—except you"—but that is essentially what we do when we ban or topic-ban someone. Unfortunately, the consensus of the committee by the end of the overly protracted case came to be that nothing less than such an approach was going to help resolve, or even to substantially mitigate, the problems that continued to afflect this group of articles.

Virtually everyone involved in the case was—is—a valued editor, and I hope that those who have been removed from this one area of the project will refocus their talents and their knowledge on other areas. I also strongly hope that in doing so, they will not repeat the types of behavior that led to their being sanctioned.

Thanks again for your note. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with NYB that it is too bad that some editors feel the need to 'retire'. I hope that they mostly take a break and come back. The editors named in the decision who have 'retired' or otherwise left, were also the ones who seemed to have the hardest time not personalizing all aspects of the topic area. I do sincerely hope that they can come back and participate in other topic areas and enjoy this silly hobby. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Query

Newyorkbrad, you stated, "My attention has been drawn to this block..." Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs) has stated essentially this was not with him, as he asked you in a post to ANI who drew your attention to it [1]. Please note, in Georgewilliamherbert's very first comment at User talk:Philip Baird Shearer, he self-disclosed, "I saw this block happen (page here watchlisted), saw the unblock request happen, and was more or less simultaneously pinged by Cirt out of band". Can you please state who it was that brought your attention to User talk:Philip Baird Shearer? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 12:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see my, and others', comments in the ANI thread. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I see, Giano self-admitted it was him, [2]. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Can one not "self-admit" - could I admit on behalf of someone else?  Giacomo  21:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert was able to. -- Cirt (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there's been a spate of "admit[ting] on behalf of someone else" among world leaders. Pope John Paul II did it, so did Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, apologizing for this and that past situation for which these people had nothing to personally apologize; a recent Australian prime minister recently admitted to past mistreatment (by other Australians) of aborigines. There must be a Wikipedia article on this kind of thing somewhere (if it survived AfD). I have no idea what this particular dispute is about and this comment is not meant in any way to constructively help solve it. I am, however, available to admit to something on behalf of someone else, should my statesmanly services be needed. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Those examples are not examples of people admitting to malfiesence of their own, but rather the body/entity for which they represent (the Catholic Church, the USA, Australia, etc.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so the answer to Giano's question would be, "Yes, if duly appointed to represent the malfeasor in question." Except that the "NO! I'm Spartacus!" in your signature brings up a counter-example for which no appointment is necessary. Therefore I renew my offer, and I'll add that I charge a very competitive fee. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Your committee is an unreliable source about its own decisions

Reading some of this saga was amusing. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Most of the editors of his biography here would have a heart attack if they knew what the de:William Connolley says. You're apparently a reliable source in Germany, so there's hope for you yet. :-) Tijfo098 (talk) 05:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Perhaps someone should tell the German Wikipedia that Lawrence Solomon writes for the National Post and not the National Review. Risker (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

He writes for the National Review as well. [3] Tijfo098 (talk) 08:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Official correction?

Can we expect a public correction of this misrepresentation of the recent ArbCom case in the press, or will you silently stand by while your decision us used to attack editors? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think it is correct to expect Arbcom to correct blogs and uncontrollable opinion threads and suchlike, it is to be totally expected in the situation. Off2riorob (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Also Also Stephen and TonySideaway are mentioned here and theres a lot of it out there. Off2riorob (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I really don't care about the blogosphere. But when opinion pieces in the Wall Street Journal start misrepresenting the case (in what I can only call depressingly bad journalism), I would hope the mere regard for the truth would motivate ArbCom to issue a correcting statement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I see it as users should be aware that they are not editing in a dark sock and that their actions do have an effect in the real world and they should expect it to be reported in a way they may not like and that users actions here may have an effect on their real life, as the contributions of users to the articles of living people here has an effect on the subjects of our articles. Off2riorob (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

"may not like" is not the issue. Objectively false is. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. If you don't want to get burnt, get out of the fire. Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Who needs firefighters, after all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems this is going to result in an ArbCom case about the ArbCom case in the press or something like that. [4]. There you go: [5]. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The blog entry of Luboš Motl, mentioned above [6], is actually quite funny. I almost feel like popping down to that Scientology shop they have on the Tottenham Court Road in my poshest frock so I can get a photo taken of me being a transvestite and trying out an E-meter (which would be the closest I've ever come to being a Scientologist). Who cannot love the blogosphere at a time like this? --TS 02:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The comments about fires and getting burnt seem destined to descend into more juvenile bickering about this topic. We are not going to have any more of that on my page, or for that matter on any other page. (For what it's worth, I think that one point relevant to Off2riorob's comment was noted in principle 7 of the Alastair Haines 2 case.)

Stephan Schulz, the WSJ link you cite at the beginning of your post appears to require a subscription. I will go ahead and subscribe so that I can read the post you cite, if you tell me it is important that I do so as a matter of fairness, but I don't think we can expect that of all the arbitrators or of all the other editors who might join in this discussion. Can you tell me what specific correction you think is necessary and why. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Check your email. NW (Talk) 02:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

For some reasons I can view the article when going there via Google. I can send you a PDF of it (but I assume NW has taken care of that). The editorial been also mirrored (with dubious legality) elsewhere in the Blogosphere. I'm concerned about the general tone of the comment, but in particular about the following statements:

• "[...]last week Wikipedia acknowledged it had been hijacked by global warming alarmists who squelched dissenting science"
• "He [WMC] routinely deleted entries that presented competing views and barred contributors with whom he disagreed."
• "They [ArbCom] also banned other posters who had turned Wikipedia into their global warming propaganda outlet."

At least the first and the third clearly ascribe to ArbCom positions that I do not find in the decision and that I think have no support. The second is nominally in the voice of the WSJ editor, but easily gives the impression that it is backed by the ArbCom case. It is, of course, factually wrong, and an explicit statement to that effect would be a useful thing. Sorry about the fireman - I could not resist the image. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I have seen the article now (which I understand was in the hard-copy paper, which I often buy, but missed on this date). I agree that it is not a neutral summary of the committee decision. Given that we are discussing errors in reporting of a decision, rather than errors in the decision itself (though I am sure you would contend there are those as well), I am not sure what, if anything, we can do about the matter. We have no mechanism, as a committee, for issuing press releases nor for responding to press accounts. How specifically do you think the committee ought to proceed? (A more appropriate venue than my talkpage might be found for this discussion, though I'd appreciate a link if that occurs.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You could send a letter to the editor of the WSJ on behalf of the committee. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I think an unambiguous on-wiki statement by ArbCom would be the simplest and best way. Apparently the text of the decision itself is open to misinterpretation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

At risk of opening myself up to accusations violating the topic ban, please allow me to give a word of advice here, NYB. If you haven't noticed, there is an extremely intense and hostile battle taking place on the Internet over global warming by advocates on different sides. Please be careful that you and the Committee don't get drawn into it. Cla68 (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

They already have been drawn into it, as their decision has been appropriated by the WSJ editorial page, one of the more consistently and fiercely partisan voices in the battle. I agree that it might be better not to respond. After all, unless the Journal editorial is frankly defamatory, they're free to spin the decision any way they like. And getting into a back-and-forth with the WSJ editorial page is a no-win situation. Readers' bullshit detectors will either start clanging, or they won't. MastCell ^Talk 00:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Reporters usually write articles from multiple sources and lines of research. It is highly unlikely that they would simply summarize the ArbCom decision and that they would include unspoken background information as well. I'll also note that some of the things Stephan complains about can be confirmed through other lines of research. I don't think it is a good precedent for Wikipedia to start issuing press releases or corrections to news outlets, most of the mistakes were minor and inconsequential, and there is already a problem with reporters directly quoting or sourcing things to wikipedia and wikipedia in turn using those sources for its articles. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, TGL is topic-banned from CC-related articles and processes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless somebody tries to use these articles (there is not only one) with all their manifest inaccuracies as sources, I don't think they're a problem for Wikipedia--and even then I see little role for the Committee except in any arbitration arising.

I'll tell you this for nothing: anybody involved in editing climate change articles should steer clear of any such dispute, on either side. Ignore this advice at your peril.

The editors whose reputations are harmed should contact the newspapers directly, and then use the regulatory bodies or the law if that fails. Tasty monster (=TS ) 17:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I found that the WSJ column accurately represented the overall tone and spirit of the arbcom case. Yes, they erred in some details but such things are inside baseball not relevant to the world beyond Wikipedia. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Tries? Some editors already tried that. It's a problem when the external sources, normally considered WP:RS, don't reflect ArbCom decisions correctly, but at the same time the ArbCom pages are not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles in order to correct any errors in the mainstream media articles retelling the ArbCom decision. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not a problem for Wikipedia, only for the unfortunate editors who do not understand the verifiability policy. Tasty monster (=TS ) 03:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia or ArbCom contacting the Wall Street Journal is a terrible idea. Aside from the Barbra Streisand effect, it is not necessary as the decision speaks for itself. If an individual arbitrator or Wikipedian wants to write a letter, that is a good and even desirable idea. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've written a letter to the WSJ editor (well, written an email) which concentrates on the inaccuracies and spin in the reporting (i.e. the arbitrators did not rule on the truth or otherwise of man-made global warming; editors from both sides were topic banned). I'd be a little surprised if they published it, as it goes against their editorial line and it's a week late, but they might. Serious newspapers are supposed to take more care over accurate reporting, and I have had letters published by newspapers in the past. A letter from an arbitrator would carry more weight, but might be politically difficult (are you speaking in a personal or official capacity?). I agree an official reply carries the danger of turning one paper's spin into something bigger than it actually is, so is probably not appropriate. Given the minefield that is public relations though, there may come a time when Wikipedia may need to consider employing a public relations consultant for advice when it's in the news. --Merlinme (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections

Brad, you are one of the few here clever enough to know the final and definitive answer to this question. Following the forthcoming elections, must successful candidates disclose their real names etc to who ever ultimately is running this show. In the current climate of "outing", mistrust and internet libel which prevails, this is obviously a major consideration for all candidates, but especially so for those candidates who already hold responsible and/or high profile positions in real life (I am thinking of those concerned with the judiciary, high ranking military personnel and other senior public sector workers - the very people who perhaps have the leadership qualities, experience and education most needed by the Arbcom). It's my opinion, having to disclose private information is a risk that many potential candidates will find not worth taking. A simple "yes they must" or "no, they need not", will be fine. I cannot be bothered to engage in a prolonged debate with the Peanut Gallery over why a self-disclosed Randy from Boise will make a better Arb than a High Court Judge, Admiral of the Fleet, or Professor from the University of Wherever. Thank you.  Giacomo  13:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I know of no legal requirement that arbitrators (or anyone else associated with Wikipedia/Wikimedia other than members of the Foundation Board of Trustees and paid employees) provide identification. However, in 2007, the Board of Trustees adopted a resolution requiring that anyone seeking advanced permissions involving access to private information must provide identification to the Office (and must be age 18 or over and of the age of majority at their place of residence). This was initially applied to Checkusers, Oversighters, and Stewards, but the Arbitration Committee (before I was a member and over my disagreement) subsequently interpreted the resolution imposing the age requirement as applying to arbitrators, because confidential checkuser and oversight data are discussed on the arbitrators' mailing list. Logically, the same resolution imposed the age and the identification requirements, so if the one applies to arbitrators so would the other, but this is not how things were implemented, at least not at first. Rather, when I was elected arbitrator at the end of 2007, I believe the position was that identification was not required to serve as an arbitrator, but was required to obtain the checkuser and/or oversight permissions that most arbitrators are granted. Subsequently, though, there was a well-known situation involving an arbitrator who had not identified to the Office, so the policy or its implementation may have been changed around that time. To the best of my knowledge, all current arbitrators are identified to the Office.

Despite your kind words at the beginning of the question, I don't know whether the Office (or the Committee, for that matter) now takes the position that all arbitrators are required to identify themselves before taking an arbitrator position, even if they are not going to seek Checkuser or Oversight access. I will try to find out the answer, and if I can, will post further here.

As I am well aware from my own experience, anyone interested in becoming an arbitrator should assume that there is a high likelihood that his or her identity will be publicly revealed at some point, irrespective of whether one identifies with the Office and irrespective of any efforts made to keep the information confidential. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you Brad, that was very helpful. It does seem to be something of a confused mystery - one that should perhaps be definitively clarified before elections commence. I look forward to your further discoveries on the matter.  Giacomo  16:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

All arbs from last year's election were not given access to the mailing list, nor oversight/checkuser until we had identified with the foundation. SirFozzie (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

So, in other words: If you want to be an Arb, you have to give the foundation your name and address, and trust them to keep it to themselves. No thank you.  Giacomo  12:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

In all fairness, Giano, I don't think there has ever even been an allegation that the foundation has ever leaked or used (let alone misused) the identifications provided to them. — Coren ^(talk) 13:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

And you think this on the basis of what exactly? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Communicat

Would it be acceptable to contact other people who have interacted with this user about the RfA he has filed against me or would that be considered canvassing? I see that the admin GeorgeWilliamHerbert has already left a comment. Edward321 (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Based on developments thus far, I don't think that'll be necessary at this time. (Just as an FYI point, "RfAr" conventionally refers to requests for arbitration; "RfA" is used for Requests for adminship, which is very different.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops. I'm obviously no expert with the acronyms. Are there any points in my RfAr post that are unclear? Are there any points in Communicat's posts that you feel I have not addressed properly? Edward321 (talk) 23:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we probably have enough information to decide on the request. (I want to read through everything one more time before voting.) Of course, if other arbitrators would like anything else to be submitted, they will say so. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

User "Mung Monkey" and Checkuser results

Howdy. I think I can guess the answer, but it's worth a shot asking. You stated on Mung Monkey (talk · contribs)'s talk page that a Checkuser on the account shows a history of vandalism (assuming my user page). Is there any way I could find out what the original User or IP was that started this mess? It's morbid curiosity on my part to look back at my contributions to see who I pissed off and how. Thanks! --TreyGeek (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I can't find anything that would answer that. As you may be aware, there are time limits on how long the checkuser data are retained. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I assumed the information was unavailable for one reason or another. I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask anyways. Thanks! --TreyGeek (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Rogue administrators

I am writing because one or more admins are blocking accounts from users who happen not to agree with them. My crime was to post these comments: User talk:BadBabysitter. I will leave it to you to decide whether or not the charges are valid. My attempts to complain have also been blocked. Attempts to contact you by email and phone also failed. I had to change my IP address in order to be able to contact you. I suspect a very large number of users have similarly been falsely accused and have been unable to contact you because they did not know how to alter their IP address. Alternate user name (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears that User:BadBabysitter was blocked for "misusing multiple accounts" in violation of policy. Is this a correct summary of your behavior? Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No!

According to Daniel Case, the reason I was blocked is that my editing attracted scrutiny. [7] Since I did not actually do any edits [8] it is clear that the charges against me was trumped up by [name of administrator removed] [9]. It remains unclear what is motivating other admins to go along with this sham. However, there is no doubt in my mind about what is motivating [that administrator].

Emails to arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org from aol.com are still being returned. 2nd Alternate user name (talk) 07:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone had reverted this post on the basis that it was blatant block evasion. This was a correct action to take; however, I am reinstating the post here (redacting the name of someone who seems to be being accused of something, I'm not sure what) per WP:IAR and responding on-wiki because of the assertion that some e-mails are not getting through to the Arbitration Committee mailing list. If true, I can understand why the issue would be raised here. I will check into this aspect of the matter.

In the interim, you may forward your e-mail appeal to me (my e-mail address is on the Arbitration Committee page) and I will forward it to the banned-user appeals subcommittee. In candor, the appeal does not strike me on its face as necessarily likely to have great merit, and the personal attack on an administrator does not help matters, but the blocked user is entitled to have it reviewed and a decision made. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarification request

You were aware that mark was blocked at the time at which you offered him the undertaking, right? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I actually was not quite clear about the chronology. In any case, I was not offering him anything (this isn't a situation where I could act unilaterally), but soliciting a piece of information that might be very relevant for the discussion. If still blocked, MarkNutley can address my inquiry on his talkpage. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• shrugs* So many unfortunate users are unable to be helped because of procedure, red tape, peer pressure, and other things, all of which is interpreted to a level of absurdity. Too bad, I guess. Cheers for the clarification, Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I share your frustration. When I ran for arbitrator three years ago, one of my hopes was to simplify the process. Instead, 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 arbitration enforcement 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 (and in real life am an experienced corporate litigation attorney)—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. As you are clearly knowledgeable about how arbitration works, I would also welcome yours. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty knowledgeable about how arbitration works also (I hire experienced corporate litigation attorneys). The problem with Arbitration as done now is that it is modeled after an Adversarial system, as opposed to a Inquisitorial system. The key feature of an Adversarial system is that both parties are expected to be represented by someone who knows how to do representation.

If arbiters were willing to actually spend some time discussing things with the parties, asking questions, clarifying demands, and what not, throughout the case, as opposed to parachuting in at the last moment with rulings from the bench, Arbitration would work again.

Further, having been leaked a substantial body of your mailing-list and sekrit wiki in the past, I would note two things - first, that you should immediately cease all back-room negotiations, as they are anathema to justice (sunlight is the best disinfectant). And further, that any attempt by any arbiter to discuss public information in a non-public forum should be revealed. Parties should have the right to face their accusers - so if an arbiter does a lot of work gathering evidence, that evidence should not be relayed to your mailing list/sekrit wiki and then piped to the proposed decision without being submitted as evidence. Hipocrite (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)