Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:41, 14 June 2011

Archives

Index of archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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)

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)

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) /_{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) /_{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)

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: Misplaced Pages: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)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case

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