User talk:Newyorkbrad

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 of enforcement only. 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 word limit is necessary—just too low. For me, the most difficult judgments about the word limit has 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 increase, 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)

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)

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)

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_23#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)

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)

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)

Reviewer

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