User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2011/Jun

Falkland Islands

I see an attempt to involve me in a dispute over the Falkland Islands by someone keen on pushing an Argentine POV. You refer to the ARBCOM dispute over Gibraltar. A year down the line the same arguments are prevailing there and the article has lost most of its informative content. There is way too much about Gibraltar pre 1704 which is of NO interest to the casual reader or any journalists using the page as a reference about Gibraltar. However the main difference is I am not wasting my time arguing about it and nor do I intend to resume doing so - even less participating in another 'we was robbed' theme by a bunch of Argentine losers. Please remove me from that listing as there will be no participation. --Gibnews (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

At the moment, it looks like the request for arbitration will not be accepted, so the issue of who is on the list of parties will be moot. Do not use terms such as "a bunch of Argentine losers" again on my talkpage or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Badger Drink, civility block and unblock by Beeblebrox

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Prodego ^talk 00:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. At this point, I think the points I would have made in the discussion have already been made by others. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Email

You've got mail. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Received and forwarded. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

'scuse me, color me dense

Of what "Strident, nasty rhetoric"[1] were you speaking, please? I reread, and I'm unclear on who is being chastised here. I see some strong language, some concerns, and some horrible grammar, but not so much the "strident rhetoric". Thanks much! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the grammar: I am not a native speaker of English.

Newyorkbrad, may I remind you of what your wrote here Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive_2#Proposal:_use_topic_ban_except_for_article_talk_page_more_often

I am surprised that such a minimal favor that I am asking for Ed Poor is met with such great resistance. Andries (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

To KillerChihuahua: Orangemarlin's.

To Andries: Let's see what some of the other arbitrators have to say. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Brad. Concur that OM's post could be characterized as vulgar; disagree that it is either nasty or even rhetorical. Appreciate you clarifying who you were speaking of, though. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

Brad, my apologies for leaving you to close Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011#Proposal solo after saying I'd help. Thanks for handling it. I was overtaken by events off-wiki, including home and office moves in the same few weeks. I should at least have dropped you a note to say I wouldn't be around as planned - sorry for not doing so. Hope all is well with you. Best, Will - WJBscribe (talk) 10:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

FutureP

Some users are stating their opinions, while also labeling themselves as uninvolved so I wrote an additional comment.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

MfD

Thanks for the ping, Brad. To be honest, I was worried it'd be closed by snout-count rather than on the strength of the various arguments - you put those worries to rest quite admirably. Hope all is well in the Big A - and hope you're ready for the lovely muggy summer, hah! Take care - Badger Drink (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

the user

The user who issued the legal threat(s) to me has been since indefinitely blocked whit email blocked so that should take care of that problem. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^{T or M}/_{Sign mine} 02:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I just want to let you know yesterday I did notice an IP removing a section from an BLP article (I do not remember what the article's name is). The IP stated in the edit summary that they where in fact the person who the article was about and he was removing a section that he though was semi-libelous and wanted to know the IP's that added that section (so he could sue them). Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^{T or M}/_{Sign mine} 15:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer

Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_February_2011#Reviewer_user_right_removal  Chzz  ►  22:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

And now for something completely different....

United States Bill of Rights is the US collaboration of the month. I am keen to see collaborations thrive (which is what this place is supposed to be about) and figured American lawyers would probably know a bit about this. Even a few comments about what might be missing or reworded/nuanced might give a big boost to those placing their shoulder to the wheel on this one. I'd ping CHL too but I know he's busy. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Brad

I come in search of advice. I know that you are a member of Arbcom, as well as being well versed in many legal issues. There have been a few threads at AN and ANI recently that concern me with respect to NFCC/non-free issues. Many of them are the tl;dr types of things (example), but I wouldn't be shocked if at one point something along this line showed up at wp:rfac. While I might like to entertain the idea of drafting some sort of request, in reality, while I read as much of that stuff as I can, I'm not really adept at voicing the proper style of language, and I don't have much experience with the protocols there. I'd also not want anything to get anyone else in trouble (or boomerang on me, since I have seen that happen) - as I can clearly understand the confusion that arises in regards to the NFCC stuff. I do try to read policy on these legal matters, but often the language tends to get legalistic and over my head. My question would be simply, do you have any advice that might help make things clearer in my own mind, or suggestions for what I could do to assist in this area? Thank you for your time, and I hope you had an enjoyable holiday. — Ched :  ?  22:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

(Placeholder; I need to find a diff to respond to this, which I'll do soon. More to follow.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

just "bump"ing this so it doesn't get archived. Been very busy myself Brad, so no hurry on this. — Ched :  ?  22:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Re

Just letting you know that I responded here if this answers your question. Thank you for considering a motion. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hodja Nasreddin's appeal and recent SPI

May I ask you to postpone your posting of motions until after this SPI has been concluded, since it could affect the outcome of the appeal: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hodja Nasreddin. Nanobear (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The case is closed, and it was not me of course. Some guys are battling at AE, as they always do after edits like that, but I could not care less about their problems. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

My note on Coren's page

That note refers. We really have to sit agree on something. I.e. no notes from individual members of the committee which may or may not reflect the views of some or all of the members. Can I phone you on your office number? Ed. 109.148.208.182 (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Word limit and BLP and flagged revisions

Hi Brad. This comment is made in my capacity as an arbitration clerk. The statement you have made at the BLP and flagged revisions arbitration request comprises of more than 500 words. I have deleted material from the statements of three other editors, but that material was simply the responses they had made to other participants. In your statement, the prose is one entry, and I cannot reduce the length without substantially altering the statement, or by deleting it entirely. Therefore, please reduce the length of your statement. Thank you. AGK [•] 21:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. As mentioned, I was away for the holiday weekend, and by the time I was back at a computer and able to deal with this, the case had already closed.

As it happens, I have opined previously in cases I am arbitrating (this not being one of them as I was recused) that I am not always sure that rigid enforcement of the word limit on statement or evidence is useful. A lot depends on the nature of the statements or evidence and the circumstances of the individual case—although I readily understand that it can be awkward for a Clerk to try to make those judgments, and doing so could lead to accusations of favoritism or the like. My take is that reading a longer rather than a shorter statement or evidence presentation is worthwhile if it eliminates arbitrators' having to hunt down diffs that were cut for space reasons on our own, or looking up diffs that the shorter version of the statement left no reason to explain, or the like. I do not, however, claim to speak for a majority of the Committee on this issue. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The case was closed about an hour after I asked several users, including you, to reduce the length of their statements. It probably made me look rather silly, but I didn't know at the time that the request was going to be closed. I have long thought that the word limit is restrictive, but as a clerk my role is one of enforcement, not of policy-making. Your statement was about 700–800 words long, which from experience I know is usually acceptable. FT2's statement, for example, was 2000 words long, which was obviously not acceptable, so the problem is not that a word limit is unnecessary, but that the current one is too low. For me, the most difficult judgments about the word limit have been in instances where editors make initial statements that are under 500 words long, but then add several responses to other participants that lengthen their section significantly. I'm not sure what you think, but I have often found that, as threaded discussion at requests for arbitration increases, the usefulness of the thread as a whole decreases. We might gain something by instating a divided word limit, with a higher limit for preliminary statements, and a separate, lower cap on rebuttals to other participants. AGK [•] 12:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Adding another comment to hold off the archival bot, in the event that anybody else wants to comment on this issue; I cross-referenced this at WT:A/R in passing. AGK [•] 11:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

As a disinterested user who has been involved in arbitration before, I'll just note that I agree that a longer word limit is probably better. 750 would be reasonable. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Why doesn't someone raise this issue on the talkpage of one of the Arbitration Committee pages and put a link here, and I will then call it to my colleagues' attention for discussion. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion has started at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Length of statements. I would be grateful if you would indeed ask the other arbitrators to participate there. Thanks, AGK [•] 16:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Apology I reverted your edit at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case in error, sorry I have changed it back. MilborneOne (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I assumed that's what had happened; misclicks happen; nothing to worry about. And in any event, lots of people have wished they could remove some of my words from arbitration pages! Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration on US Supreme Court case article improvement ?

Hi Newyorkbrad, I have greatly admired your knowledge of the law. :)

• I recently decided (diff) to shift my focus away from other topics and away from DYK — and focus on quality improvement of articles on U.S. Supreme Court cases. Would you care to collaborate with me on a quality improvement drive — and perhaps start with New York Times Co. v. Sullivan ?

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

FA writer Wehwalt has some ideas, please see User_talk:Wehwalt#Collaboration_on_US_Supreme_Court_case_article_improvement_.3F. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

We are likely going to collaborate on Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, if you are interested. :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

At the moment, I am hopelessly buried in real-life work and can barely keep up with my arbitration responsibilities, so I'm going to have to defer any significant mainspace work, despite my numerous promises to myself and others to return to the content creation that was the reason I came to Wikipedia in the first place. Soon, I promise!

In any event, it probably would not good for either of us if we were actively collaborating on an article at a time when you're a party to a pending request for arbitration and I'm on the Committee, so in any event we should probably table this discussion for awhile. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Political activism RfAr

Hi Brad, I have some concerns about this. First, voting is taking place so fast that there is no time to compile sufficient evidence to persuade the Committee of the need to accept the case, and to ensure that it includes an examination of editor conduct. I've posted as much as I can for now here, though several members have already voted, so it may be too late. I believe this is a case that requires careful consideration, because the situation is causing community disruption in several areas, not only regarding the immediate santorum issue.

Secondly, Shell Kinney is in my view involved, and I've requested her recusal here. She has acted in a way that I feel is supportive of Cirt, and inappropriately so, while voting to decline the case. I don't know what the correct way is to request recusal, so any advice about procedure would be appreciated, and whether I have to demonstrate that there are sufficient grounds for the request. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with SV, especially as the user in question does not seem to be following his off topic request for a reason to not have a case (i.e., real life too crazy). I think the user, in general, adds tremendous value to en.wikipedia, but also pushes the boundries of activism in several arenas. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for my delay in responding; I've been crazy-busy off-wiki this week.

As you both know, I voted to accept the case, albeit with a somewhat different focus than is emphasized in SlimVirgin's postings. However, there does not appear to be a majority of the Committee in favor of taking the case. Since I only have one vote, and have said my piece, I really don't have any further influence over whether the case will be accepted or declined.

With regard to SlimVirgin's concerns about Cirt, I think it is clear from my vote comment that I am concerned about, at least, the creation and certain aspects of the editing of Santorum (neologism) and templates linking to it. To the extent that Cirt was part of that dispute, the conclusion follows that his edits could be part of my concern (though I have not scrutinized all the edits to the extent I would if we opened a case). However, I believe Cirt has indicated that he will no longer engage in the practices or alleged practices that SlimVirgin complains of. If he abides by that commitment, the issues alleged in this case will not recur. If he does not, the matter can be raised again as appropriate.

With regard to the request for Shell Kenney's recusal, as you know, decisions about recusal of an arbitrator are committed in the first instance to the judgment and discretion of that arbitrator. In this case, Shell Kinney has repeatedly stated that she does not believe she should recuse, although if the case were accepted, she might recuse in part with respect to any proposed findings or remedies that involved Cirt. While I understand that you vehemently feel that recusal would have been appropriate, it has become fairly clear that there is not a consensus of arbitrators who would vote to direct that Shell Kinney be recused involuntarily; and in any event, the issue will become moot if the case is declined, as it soon will be unless some votes change. I can't really discuss this issue further without getting into the contents of private e-mails, which in any event I haven't studied thoroughly. I think it might be best to drop this aspect of the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Previously accepted Arbitration on Ebionites

Please advise regarding the discussion at User talk:Jayjg#Another question re: Ebionite mediation. The mediation has effectively ended on my withdrawl because of what seems to me the continuing misconduct of the parties against whom arbitration was filed, as indicated by a totally baseless allegation of User:John being either my sockpuppet or sockmaster as ANI and other matters which have taken place during this most recent attempt at mediation. One of the primary purposes was to have the behavioral issues addressed, which cannot be done in mediation. Unfortunately, as far as I remember, you had told Jayjg that he would be in a position to indicate when the mediation was finished, and he has indicated that he would not himself advise ArbCom of the end of mediation. I believe that there are in place the conditions for the arbitration to begin, barring the implicit requirement that it be Jayjg's "duty" to notify ArbCom, and his indication that he would not do so. Please advise regarding where the matter should go from here. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Brad, please note that this incident happened on January 6, 2011. I apologized to User:John for my mistake immediately on his talk page, and John Carter is fully aware of all these facts. Mediation did not commence until March 17, 2011. My last edit to the Ebionites article, other than responding to incidents or questions resulting from mediation, was April 17, 2011. Ovadyah (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe we had provided that if the mediation failed, an arbitration case would be opened. Presumably this is what should happen, unless the dispute has been resolved through some other means, which it looks like it hasn't. I will draw this thread to the attention of my arbitrator colleagues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You had as I remember indicated that Jayjg would be the one who would be in a position to indicate if the mediation failed, which is why I brought it to your attention. Although, of course, John was apologized to, I never was. And, yes, I may have gotten the dating wrong. I also find the comments about "fictitious craP' to quote Ovadyah at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebionite Jewish Community (3rd nomination) to be of interest. Such somewhat extremist beliefs regarding the statements of independent reliable sources and misstatements attributed to them may in fact be one of the reasons why a group which has, apparently, existed since the mid-1980's still has not been the subject of any significant independent discussion in reliable sources. Granted, I have not been able to check every source, but NewsBank contains no records mentioning the group or its founder, nor does Gale General OneFile or Infotrac, nor do any other sources which I have checked, including several which have been counted by the American Library Association and Booklist as among the most outstanding reference works of recent years. And I also note that there has, seemingly, been little interest in the page since mediation began, including by parties not named in the ArbCom request. I have every reason to believe that might change if and when the arbitration is resolved and its decisions reached. John Carter (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You're invited to the New York Wiknic!

You could be having this much fun! Seriously, consider coming.

This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape (directions) in Manhattan's Central Park.

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

To subscribe to future events, follow the mailing list or add your username to the invitation list. BrownBot (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

US National Archives collaboration

United States National Archives WikiProject

Would you like to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the National Archives and its incredible collection? This summer, the National Archives—which houses some of America's most important historical documents—is hosting me as its Wikipedian in Residence, and I have created WP:NARA to launch these efforts. There are all sorts of tasks available for any type of editor, whether you're a writer, organizer, gnome, coder, or image guru. The National Archives is making its resources available to Wikipedia, so help us forge this important relationship! Please sign up and introduce yourself. Dominic·t 15:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Mathsci

I recently asked Risker about this in her user talk. Apparently she cannot answer due to be recused on R&I so I'm asking an arbitrator who I know was involved in that case.

I understand that when Mathsci's topic ban from the R&I case was lifted, he made an agreement with the arbitrators to cease involvement in the topic. However, he is continuing to comment in the user talk of myself and others to complain about our edits to these articles, accusing us of policy violations and threatening us with sanctions. Some recent examples of this are [2], [3] and [4]. According to the last comment, he monitors the edits of several people who are active in this area and he says this is consistent with his restriction.

I counted all the revisions to my talk. There are 35 total. 17 of these revisions are from Mathsci. Since Mathsci does not edit the articles themselves I have never interacted with him in article space. But half of the comments to my talk are from him. Is Mathsci right that his agreement with Arbcom is meant to allow this? If not, I would like some advice about what to do about this. ThanksBoothello (talk) 05:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

answer your email

You really should answer your email, and restrain the likes of Jpgordon from blocking legitimate forms of communication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.32.202 (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

If you are who I think you are, one of my colleagues on the committee was following up on the issue. I was actually planning to ask if he or anyone else had an update, and I will do so soon, but we're a little bit distracted at the moment. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

RfC/U: Cirt

Brad, further to the recent Political activism request for arbitration and various arbitrators' comments at that request to the effect that there had not been to date an RfC/U on Cirt, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cirt. Best, --JN466 13:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

1024E / Robert Earl Sawyer

I've just noticed this MfD for the first time. Had I noticed it, I'd have commented. Putting aside my opinion on the worthiness of the resulting article on Robert Earl Sawyer for now, I'd point out that he's the father of Errol Sawyer (see also this, this and this), and therefore the article on RES is by RES's daughter-in-law. (Which of course in itself violates no policy.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting observation, thanks. Meanwhile, I see that someone has moved the article to mainspace, which if nothing else resolves the issue that was raised in the MfD about an article draft being in userspace indefinitely. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)