Talk:Susan P. Graber

Bot-created subpage

A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Susan Graber was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Editing disputes

@Aboutmovies: @Fmuzzio: I have this article on my watchlist and I see the two of you have been reverting some changes to the article back and forth. I don't see much substantive difference between the versions to warrant this level of dispute. There is clearly no reason to be reverting the grammatical changes and minor copyedits that were made to the article. Apart from those, could one of you explain the reasons for disputing the other's changes, so I (or anyone else interested) can weigh in?

In response to Aboutmovies' edit summaries, I don't perceive that making a slight edit to a BLP at the request of the article subject constitutes a conflict of interest, where the edit concerns a straightforward factual correction or is otherwise not serious controversial. Moreover, because vandalism is defined as causing intentional damage to the value or integrity of the encyclopedia, I don't believe using that word in connection with this article is necessary or helpful.

Hopefully we'll be able to resolve any concerns both of you have. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Continued removal of accurate, sourced content is vandalism. As I explained on the user's talk page most of the edits are fine but to stop removing the part that this editor previously said was true. That continued instance of removal of that despite it being true is why everything else was reverted. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The fact that something is true is a necessary condition to including content in an article, but we don't necessarily include every single fact about a person in the article. If there's a reason someone believes a specific fact is not worth including, either because it is trivial or irrelevant or disputed in some way, the issue should be discussed. So let's wait to hear from Fmuzzio as to what his or her reasons are. In the meantime, since there is presumably a good-faith reason Fmuzzio wants to make a deletion or change, I repeat that the term "vandalism" should definitely not be used.

In any event, a disagreement about one change does not justify reverting other changes that are not disputed. If an edit or series of edits contains five changes, and you disagree with one of them, at most you should revert the one, not all five. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Generally I would agree, but given the message left on my talk page, I have a difficult time with AFG at this point since the editor flatly denied what their own edit summary basically says. They also have a history of not using edit summaries and then removing the same piece of info, but now claiming it was inaccurate. When I see patterns such as that, my AFG goes out the window and I am not inclined to be nice enough to take the time to sort out all the edits, I will just undo it all until they comply with how we do things. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Aboutmovies, reverting undisputed corrections and good changes out of an article because of disagreement with a different change, or with the fact that a new editor hasn't yet mastered wikiquette, is undesirable on any article. In the context of a BLP it is unacceptable and I really have to insist that you not do it again.

That said, at this point, I ask Fmuzzio what exactly is the problem with the "pro tem judgeship" language? Perhaps it is an issue that could be addressed by adjusting the wording rather than removing the statements altogether. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Newyorkbrad, thanks for stepping in. The two sentences I've been trying to remove reference that Judge Graber was selected to serve as a state district court judge on a temporary basis and was a mediator for the U.S. District Court. Judge Graber has found that these sentences are misleading and cause readers to think that she became a U.S. District Court judge in 1983, which is untrue. Newspaper articles often give her credit for this experience, and so she asked me to edit the page in a way that more accurately reflected her career. (Here's an example from a recent article inaccurately noting she "held [a] district court appointment[] prior to being elevated to appellate judge[]."

While it is technically correct that the Oregon Supreme Court authorized her to act as a pro tem judge in 1983, she continued to practice as an attorney afterwards and only ever appeared as a pro tem judge a couple of times from 1983 until 1988. Therefore, the statement that she "began her career as a judge . . . in 1983" allows for the inaccurate inference that she became a full-time judge at that point, when that didn't happen until 1988. Since she only served as a pro-tem judge a couple of times over those five years, she thought it best to delete the sentence entirely and avoid reader confusion.

As to the second sentence, stating that she acted as a mediator for the U.S. District Court is also technically correct, but that certainly isn't part of her judicial career since a mediator is not a judge. While I could have moved this sentence into the legal section of her biography, she suggested deleting it because she didn't think it was worth noting in her biography and may also have contributed to the confusion of her serving as a U.S. district court judge.

As you noted, I made several other changes to the article that, thankfully, Aboutmovies doesn't have qualms with--including updating Judge Graber's profile picture. If possible, could my most recent edits be restored so that I don't have to go back in and make the changes once more? I appreciate both your and Aboutmovies attention to detail. This is my first--and hopefully last--time editing a Wikipedia page. I didn't understand how to communicate using talkpages until today, so I hope you'll forgive my lack of clarity on why I was making these changes. Fmuzzio (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll work on this in the next couple of days and try to develop some language that will satisfy everyone. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Newyorkbrad:, have you made any progress on this? Fmuzzio (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Fmuzzio: Sorry, I've had limited online time during the holidays, but will address this soon after the new year. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Aboutmovies: @Fmuzzio: My apologies for the delay in getting back to this. As promised, I've edited the article in a way that should satisfy all the concerns raised. Specifically, I've reinstated all the edits that weren't disputed. Then, with respect to Judge Graber's service as a pro tem. judge and a mediator, I've added that content back in, but as Fmuzzio is correct that this occurred before Judge Graber was a full-time judge, I've put that content in the "legal career" rather than "judicial career" section, and tried to make clear that these were limited assignments during a period in which she was still primarily a practicing attorney. (Frankly, I don't disagree with Fmuzzio that this content could be dispensed with altogether, but since Aboutmovies seems to feel strongly the other way for whatever reason, leaving the content in but addressing the concern about misimpressions it might create strikes me as the best course.)

Hopefully this is now satisfactory to both of you, but if there are any comments or questions, please let me know (here is fine). Apologies again that it took me a bit of time to get to this. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

References