Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:27, 23 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)

Discussion has started at Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages: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!

This message is being sent to inform you of a Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages, 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 , and . 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)