This thread has now been restored after the removal of wording (and photographs) which, either overtly or subtly, could have encouraged readers to seek out the identity of the thread's subject, or given the impression that The Wikipedia Review (as an entity) meant to encourage readers to do so.

We (the administrators and moderators of The Wikipedia Review) understand that the removal of this material will be controversial. Nevertheless, we wish to make it clear that while this website does not specifically prohibit the discussion of the actual or possible real-life identities of various users and administrators of the Wikipedia website, discussions of this nature must be justified by the prior actions of those users and administrators, rather than merely the potential for future damage to personal reputations, or to the historical record, due to incompetence, inaction, or deliberate malfeasance. In this case, it was determined that the standard for justification had not been met.

In particular, the posting of photographs purported to be of the thread's subject was a hotly-contested issue, despite the fact that the photographs were originally posted on Wikimedia Foundation servers under the GFDL and obtained from there. In the end, since the issue had already been raised, we decided to allow two of the three photos - with a link to the third showing its overall pictorial context - in the hopes that this might at least prevent anyone interested in the person's identity from pursuing a "false positive."

- Somey

On February 20, 2008 I asked administrators on this Board to remove this thread that I started about Newyorkbrad. This thread provoked 4,611 page views in just over three days. It generated hostility toward me, even though I've been consistent in my criticisms of Wikipedia for more than two years now.

I made a mistake by requesting that this thread be removed. While I appreciate Wikipedia Review's administrators and moderators for their willingness to honor my request, I have now asked them to restore this thread. It is locked down because I still feel that the hostility toward me caused the thread to take an objectionable turn, and it seemed to be gaining momentum in this direction. Now that tempers have cooled after nearly two weeks, any new comments about this issue are better placed in a new thread.

—Daniel Brandt

Whoever he is, NewYorkBrad is streets ahead of any other leading Wikipedian in terms of common sense and good practice. He's probably WPs best hope of reform before its too late, and one of the only people standing between folks like JzG pulling down the whole place in a blaze of ridiculous scandals.

Caution can avoid you controversy, but isn't a substitute for leadership. What I've seen so far is that New York Brad gets the best of every discussion by holding back and letting others make all the tough calls as he climbs through the hierarchy.

The key to power on Wikipedia isn't making friends, it's avoiding enemies. I've never seen him risk his popularity to take a stand on what he thought was right. Compare him to people like Giano, Cla68, Cool Hand Luke, SirFozzie, etc. These people are willing to risk their necks to do what's right, and that's why they will never rise any farther in the power structure.

Caution can avoid you controversy, but isn't a substitute for leadership. What I've seen so far is that New York Brad gets the best of every discussion by holding back and letting others make all the tough calls as he climbs through the hierarchy. Perhaps this will no longer be true as he amasses power.

But as of now, I've seen no evidence (or is it only that I haven't seen it?) that NYB is willing to confront the community's excesses, beyond declining to participate in them himself.

"Repent, Harlequin!" Said the TickTockMan — Harlen Ellison [sic]

I am curious about whether Newyorkbrad should claim he's an attorney, and answer questions about the law on Wikipedia talk pages, at the same time that he refuses to identify himself in real life and leaves us unable to verify his credentials. Now that he's an arbitrator, this question is more important. I thought that the legal profession tended to frown on this.

Isn't this the same issue that we had with Essjay? Didn't Jimbo brag to the press that he was going to fix this so that credentials could be verified?

In terms of his on-wiki behavior, he appears to be rational and even-tempered, but it's true that he never takes sides. He's sort of a process technician, which amounts to an implicit endorsement for Wikipedia and all of its processes. We all know that the system is utterly corrupt and bleeding to death. A box of nice little bandages offered by a polite technician is not what Wikipedia needs, nor does the offer deserve much credit.

Essjay too was generally well-liked for his on-wiki activities, and that didn't cut it at all in the real world.

I am curious about whether Newyorkbrad should claim he's an attorney, and answer questions about the law on Wikipedia talk pages, at the same time that he refuses to identify himself in real life and leaves us unable to verify his credentials. Now that he's an arbitrator, this question is more important. I thought that the legal profession tended to frown on this.

Not just the legal profession, but the law itself.

Unless he provides evidence of being a lawyer (i.e., a license with his name on it), isn't he illegally practicing law without a license?

Well no, because he's not practicing law on Wikipedia.

I've never seen him risk his popularity to take a stand on what he thought was right.

Jimbo is on record in the mainstream media as stating that claimed credentials should be verifiable.

Jimbo's got an obvious get-out. He was referring to the use of claimed credentials when arguing over disputed factual points in articles (Essjay on religious articles) not when standing for ArbCom. It may look good to him, though maybe not to outsiders.

I want to know for the record, even if he's universally acknowledged as a nice guy. He wrote recently, "My off-wiki resume includes 20 years of experience as a litigation attorney in Manhattan."

When you have established a good sense of who he is, remember, I have warned him several times that a law license is not something he should be willing to risk, for the sake of joining a band of kids playing an internet game called Wikipedia. He cannot and should not be allowed to practice law in New York and then play law at Jimmy's game. One is real, the other is not.

Not just the legal profession, but the law itself.

Unless he provides evidence of being a lawyer (i.e., a license with his name on it), isn't he illegally practicing law without a license?

Granted, if it should actually turn out that he's not a real lawyer after all, that would be another Essjay-style scandal, but if he is exactly what he says he is, is there really any need to expose exactly which New York lawyer he is and threaten to cause trouble for his career, in retaliation for... exactly what?

Statement by Newyorkbrad

I am currently the subject of a discussion thread on an external site, in which contributors are attempting to locate my real-world name and biographical information. I object as a matter of principle to this type of activity, which is calculated if not designed to deter editors who prefer to edit anonymously from continuing to contribute to Wikipedia, but obviously I am powerless to stop it.

I have thus far chosen to edit Wikipedia under a username without disclosing my real-world identity on-wiki, because I maintain a separation between my work on this project and my other activities. I came here originally to write articles and have, somewhat to my surprise, become more and more involved in the administrative and dispute-resolution aspects of the site. None of these activities have anything to do with my real-world employment or other activities, other than the occasional Wikipedia meet-up.

The related question has been raised whether the credentials I have claimed on-wiki (primarily my 20 years of experience as a litigation attorney in New York) are legitimate. Although I prefer to edit anonymously, my identity is known to members of the Board of Trustees (from when I was appointed as a member of the committee that supervised the Board elections) and the Arbitration Committee (from when I was appointed as a Clerk). I have also attended a number of meet-ups and have identified myself to several other Wikipedians in good standing who were kind enough to express interest. I have never used my legal qualifications in a dispute over article content (my article contributions are generally obscure enough that there are generally no disputes, though I sometimes fear that there also is generally no readership). However, if the concern being expressed on the external site is that I might be inventing a false identity to look more qualified to be an administrator or an arbitrator, then the alleged concern could certainly have been addressed by means short of posting enlargements of three photographs from meet-ups and an all-points-bulletin for identification of New York lawyers with the name Brad.

The perception has also been expressed on the external site that I have "amassed power" on Wikipedia (power? to do what? to spend my free time looking at diffs of evidence?) by focusing on "process" while rarely expressing opinions about controversial matters. It is quite true that my style has been to try to resolve disputes rather than to create them. Over the past year and a half, though, I think I've spoken out on various divisive and complex issues and expressed strong opinions as much as any other Wikipedian, though I'm not going to bother to enumerate examples here. For what it's worth, some of the time I have agreed with views expressed on the external site in question; and some of the time I've disagreed with them; and at other times it is hard to say because the contributors to that site are themselves divided on the issue, although they rarely stop to consider that this fact might suggest that the issues are more complex than they otherwise posit.

Now that I am on the Arbitration Committee, I will probably be wading into fewer disputes on the noticeboards—partly for the reason that Miltopia identified in a post a couple of months ago, i.e., to avoid a perception of partiality if the disputes later come to arbitration, and partly because sometimes anything an arbitrator says is perceived as some sort of official pronouncement even when it is not meant that way. (Miltopia's thoughts combined with the calls for various arbitrators to recuse in the pending Mantanmoreland case raise the question of how far, in the name of disinterestedness and the creation of recusal standards, we want to go toward creating a class of arbitrators who are somewhat cut off from the general administrator community—a concern that parallels the oft-expressed concern that we have a class of administrators somewhat cut off from the general editing community. But I digress.)

However, I'll certainly be taking sides and casting votes for the next three years as an arbitrator, so if my strategy had been to attain an arbitrator position by not taking sides on any controversial matter, which it was not, such a strategy would certainly have been a self-limiting and self-defeating one. I was enormously flattered and gratified by the level of support I received during the ArbCom election, but I was also aware that the day the election closed marked the maximum level of popularity I could ever enjoy here, because once I started voting on cases, I would begin upsetting and disappointing people. Which is exactly what is happening, albeit even sooner than I expected, and sometimes with editors whose friendship I have been very disappointed seemingly to lose.

As for the "outing" attempt, it is, I submit, counterproductive to the goals that many of the contributors to Wikipedia Review (okay, I got tired of typing "the external site") say they strive for. Threads on WR sometimes express concern that too much of Wikipedia is run by "a bunch of teenagers." Now I happen to think that many of the teenagers are doing exemplary jobs and I believe strongly in the principle of equal rights among contributors—but let's accept, as a working hypothesis, that older and more experienced people have a role to play in carrying out responsibilities such as dispute resolution. Let's even accept, purely as a working hypothesis and without prejudice, that there is a possibility that I am doing a halfway decent job. In that case, I cannot for the life of me understand why one would undertake an effort to unearth private information that I have chosen, obviously intentionally, not to reveal on-wiki and risk causing me or others similarly situated to want to leave.

While part of me is enraged at the attempt to identify me, another part of me is not surprised that this is happening and was expecting it to happen a good deal sooner. This is, however, an example of the sort of thing that I believe gives some of Wikipedia's critics a reputation for seeking purely to hurt our project rather than improve it. Unlike many other Wikipedians who ignore Wikipedia Review, for the past several months I have read substantially every word written on the publicly accessible portions of that site. Some of what is said there is right. Some of what is said there is wrong, or at best debatable, but it provides insight into what people think. As I said when I was asked the question during the election, the site is a mixed bag. But a thread like today's provides powerful ammunition for those who believe that Wikipedia Review is unworthy of respect or engagement because it is a place populated primarily by people who hate Wikipedia and hate Wikipedians.

In any event, whatever happens, I will do my best not to let this situation affect my work as an editor, an administrator, or an arbitrator.

Like anything else on Wikipedia, this post is GFDL licensed and may be copied to other sites, but as a courtesy I ask that anyone copying it do so only in its entirety. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I would also like to express my thanks to those who have posted supportively. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

...given that he's representing himself on WP as an attorney.

Look, there's nothing morally or ethically wrong with wanting to know who the guy is, given that he's representing himself on WP as an attorney. I'm sorry, but "because I maintain a separation between my work on this project and my other activities" just doesn't cut it. He should probably either tell everyone that he's been lying about his legal background, or identify himself. Then again, if the Board of Trustees believes him, then that's going to be good enough for the WP'ers, I suppose...

Anyway, the guy obviously doesn't want to be identified, and frankly I see no reason why he should be. If Daniel wants to go out of his way and figure out who he is, then fine - but I'd rather not see Wikipedia Review dragged into this, given that this person is generally well-liked and not really abusive, or even especially biased from what I can tell.

He hasn't been identified yet, so frankly I don't see what harm has been done so far, other than putting up those godawful photos. I've got half a mind to excise them myself, if only to improve the site's overall aesthetic appearance. (Then again, like I should talk... I ought to lose at least 15 pounds myself, mostly off the midsection, and I'm not even a lawyer!)

Let me put it another way - for a guy who buys into the project as much as he does, he's not drinking the kool aid the way (the royal) we can point in obvious ways to other folks of power and prestige in the Wikipedia community. If there's anyone who's got the power to be a difference maker and can actually be somewhat of an advocate toward those here who have been wronged in the past, it's likely him, and it's probably not a good idea to assume he's Essjay II unless there's some pretty compelling evidence to suggest it. Of all the problem characters who remain on the project, it's probably a better strategy to focus on outside reform about those characters rather than going off on the one guy who might actually do the right thing when it comes around. After all, we already know we largely can't trust his ArbCom colleagues.

I only looked very briefly, but I was not able to find where NYB has done anything beyond a simple statement of fact in his arbcom nomination and some questions from the peanut gallery before the voting.

Nonsense. External dispute resolution, by real professionals who know that credibility requires they have no need or even desire to hide their identity is the the only realistic hope of reform. Anyone willing to serve on a forum at Mr. Wales pleasure is by definition suspect. That he hides his identity ought to be a significant concern.

That may all be true, but the question in this thread has been, is Newyorkbrad someone we have any cause to single out for scrutiny at this time? The consensus seems to be no.

Caution can avoid you controversy, but isn't a substitute for leadership. What I've seen so far is that New York Brad gets the best of every discussion by holding back and letting others make all the tough calls as he climbs through the hierarchy. Perhaps this will no longer be true as he amasses power.

But as of now, I've seen no evidence (or is it only that I haven't seen it?) that NYB is willing to confront the community's excesses, beyond declining to participate in them himself.

I was impressed by his stance against the block of !!. I remember him being there right at the beginning.

I asked the semi-rhetorical question about practicing law (about three pages ago) because I had a concern that's been voiced again here.

Given the nature of Wikipedia, isn't it incumbent on someone who is (1) one of the most powerful users of the site and (2) claiming to be a lawyer -- a licensed and regulated profession anywhere Wikipedia operates -- to provide some proof of the claim?

I can't prove a negative -- thus I can't prove he's NOT a lawyer.

He's making the claim. If he wants to be believed in the post-Essjay Wikipedia, at some point, he's going to have to provide proof.

I have no reason to disbelieve him right now.

It's just that I have no reason to believe him, either.

I think I know why Daniel is asking -- it's his belief, as I understand it, that NO Wikipedia bureaucrat should be anonymous.

It's an argument I agree with. When you reach the levels of power over content and membership that the Arbs have at WP, and given the non-profit status of the WMF (and thus, WP)... isn't transparency necessary?

1. This week, the Foundation received a legal threat, termed by Brad [Patrick] "the most serious legal threat we have received so far." The basis of this threat was the statement by a very serious Florida-based group with a very serious New York attorney that the Wikimedia Foundation alone is legally liable for the actions of its admins, as they are working on behalf of the Foundation.

2. In other words, we are acting as publisher, rather than as bulletin board, negating the basis of any legal protection we might have--anywhere.

3. Brad, myself, and a very small handful of En admins were aware of this.

4. At Brad's request, the two articles in question were stubbed and protected. Brad wanted this to be done specifically by me, as an employee of the Foundation, and not as an admin, which would feed into the argument of those threatening us. The nature of the threat was, and is, to be kept highly confidential. While the threat may have been resolved in this instance, it could be used again, and we do NOT as yet have a satisfactory answer to it.

If you're expecting full disclosure from NYB, you should be prepared to do the same if you're going to claim a legal expertise.

If Daniel Brandt wants to pursue his enquiries, he is surely entitled to do so. If he wants to suggest that this site collectively, or any of the staff or moderators, is seeking to "out" NYB then he is wrong. I for one neither know nor care. Is that clear, Daniel? Brad?

He has a perfect right to claim to be President Bush if he wants if he doesn't intend to win content disputes through that.

Wikipedia is very much a project that has certain responsibilities to the public. This starts with its claim to be a factual encyclopedia, and continues with its tax-exempt status, and the fact that donations are tax-deductible.

Newyorkbrad does not have the right to claim that he is President Bush. And he also does not have the right to remain anonymous as a member of ArbCom, in my opinion.

When I hear all of the uninformed opinions in this thread about who has the right to do what, I'm convinced that there is a tremendous disconnect between Wikipedia's editors and the real world. That ought to be a source of concern for a so-called "encyclopedia," it seems to me.

It isn't a source of concern. On the contrary, the Foundation and Jimbo avoid the issue instead of dealing with it. This is why Wikipedia has a limited life expectancy. Some of the people in this thread couldn't pass Philosophy 101 if their lives depended on it. I spent three years in grad school studying Social Ethics. That doesn't make me right, but at least I'm able to see stupid posts for what they are.

No, my grad school education never made it into my bio. No one asked me, so no one knew about it. Even if they asked, I probably would have just said, "Excuse me, but I don't want to be in your encyclopedia because it's unreliable and irresponsible." How far do you think I'd get if I said that?

We all know the answer to that question by now, because that's what happened more than two years ago.

Isn't the position that "WR is not responsible for the actions of its contributors" exactly the position that Brandt denies?

That's not true in the public sphere. Once enough people noticed his claims, he'd be sent to some sort of institution. There, in a restrictive environment, and among any friends he can make, he'd have the right to claim he's President Bush.

I want Newyorkbrad's name for the same reason that you need a driver's license to use public roadways. It has nothing to do with what he's done, but has to do with what he might do now that he is on ArbCom. In this new position, he has the power to make people's lives miserable.

When you get behind the wheel and drive on public roads, you need a driver's license. It has your picture, and the cop cars have computer links to your criminal and traffic-violation history. You need proof of liability insurance in Texas and you need a vehicle registration that ties into the license plates displayed front and rear of your vehicle, as well as the vehicle identification number on the dashboard. You need a current safety-check sticker also.

If a cop pulls you over and you don't have any of this stuff, depending on your record you might end up in jail and your car will get towed to the impound lot. If you claim that you're President Bush on top of that, I guarantee that the cop won't say, "Well, sir, you have the right to claim that, and I'm sorry I bothered you, Mr. President."

Wikipedia is very much a project that has certain responsibilities to the public. This starts with its claim to be a factual encyclopedia, and continues with its tax-exempt status, and the fact that donations are tax-deductible.

Newyorkbrad does not have the right to claim that he is President Bush. And he also does not have the right to remain anonymous as a member of ArbCom, in my opinion.

When I hear all of the uninformed opinions in this thread about who has the right to do what, I'm convinced that there is a tremendous disconnect between Wikipedia's editors and the real world. That ought to be a source of concern for a so-called "encyclopedia," it seems to me.

It isn't a source of concern. On the contrary, the Foundation and Jimbo avoid the issue instead of dealing with it. This is why Wikipedia has a limited life expectancy. Some of the people in this thread couldn't pass Philosophy 101 if their lives depended on it. I spent three years in grad school studying Social Ethics. That doesn't make me right, but at least I'm able to see stupid posts for what they are.

No, my grad school education never made it into my bio. No one asked me, so no one knew about it. Even if they asked, I probably would have just said, "Excuse me, but I don't want to be in your encyclopedia because it's unreliable and irresponsible." How far do you think I'd get if I said that?

We all know the answer to that question by now, because that's what happened more than two years ago.

Not really much of a threat. Suppose Brad spent his free time playing a first person shooter game "Law Rage" in which a discredited lawyer hunts down and kills lying spouses and girlfriends of clients who acted in cahoots and drove him from the practice of law. Not a very healthy activity but hardly a matter for the bar association to be concerned. Same thing about Wikipedia I should think.

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. The board of an encyclopaedia accepts responsibility for every word of its contents. Who, in this context, constitute the Board of Wikipedia?

It seems to me that the moderators on a bulletin board cannot accept responsibility to the same degree because of freedom of speech, but of course I'm just a little blonde English girl who doesn't understand American law.

Do the talk pages / meta spaces / etc of Wikipedia have the same status as the (encyclopedia's) article pages?

When you get behind the wheel and drive on public roads, you need a driver's license. It has your picture, and the cop cars have computer links to your criminal and traffic-violation history. You need proof of liability insurance in Texas and you need a vehicle registration that ties into the license plates displayed front and rear of your vehicle, as well as the vehicle identification number on the dashboard. You need a current safety-check sticker also.