User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2013/Jun

Opinion sort

Hi Newyorkbrad, I wondered if you'd be interested to read User:WereSpielChequers/Going off the boil? cheers ϢereSpielChequers 11:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a very thoughtful essay. I agree with lots of what you've said and will probably offer some comments on a few aspects when I have a bit more time. Regards,Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy edit, I look forward to your comments. ϢereSpielChequers 21:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Does this interest you at all?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/English_Wikipedia_readership_survey_2013 --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Tenmei → Enkyo2

Please notice the reasons for a username change here. A simple name change was done here --Enkyo2 15:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Question for My TPSs: Which U.S. Supreme Court Justice Are You?

Which Supreme Court Justice Are You? A Noncuratlex.com Personality Quiz

Feel free to post your results here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Haha. I got Kagan. Hot Stop 16:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I did as well. It must be true, or they couldn't print it on the interwebs. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Scalia! Go Phightins! 20:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Me too! AutomaticStrikeout  ?  02:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

There are probably several TPSs that got Clarence Thomas, but they aren't posting, just sitting silently and waiting for someone else to write this. --GRuban (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

DC WikiSalon on June 6

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next DC WikiSalon, which will be held on the evening of Thursday, June 6 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill ^[talk] 11:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Have time on Saturday?

I'm sorry for the last-minute notice, but on Saturday, June 8, from 3 to 6 PM, Wikimedia DC and the Cato Institute are hosting a Legislative Data Meetup. We will discuss the work done so far by WikiProject U.S. Federal Government Legislative Data to put data from Congress onto Wikipedia, as well as what more needs to be done. If you have ideas you'd like to contribute, or if you're just curious and feel like meeting up with other Wikipedians, you are welcome to come! Be sure to RSVP here if you're interested.

I hope to see you there!

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for D.C.-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Harej (talk) 04:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Can't make this one, but please keep me posted about future events. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

wickwack topic ban

Hi, NYB. If you'll reread the ANI discussion, there seems to be general consensus that should wickwack actually register an account, rather than use an IP but sign a name manually, he should not be blocked under good behavior. You have issued a block of six months, which implies he'd remain blocked even if he registered. I suggest you contact another poster at that discussion if you think me interpretation is off. Otherwise, I'd reword the ban to drop the six months and make it clear he's not banned if he registers and behaves. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I've just re-read the discussion and I'd assess the comments as maybe half of them being qualified by the caveat and the other half (including the original topic-ban proposal) not. Given that there is no indication Wickwack plans to register, the distinction may be moot and so I am not inclined to reopen the discussion to clarify the point. However, if Wickwack does register an account and promises to edit only from that account, I would consider allowing him to reopen the discussion on AN and explain how he will contribute to the RD more productively and in one place going forward. You may feel free to let him know of this. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, understood. Of course wickwack has intentionally made it impossible to contact him. μηδείς (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Connecticut v. Doehr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Assault and battery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. I seem to be attracting the bots to this page lately. Maybe it's the new cologne I'm wearing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

bots

Bots can be annoying little creatures, but my experience is that it's best that they not be blocked. signed: chedbot. — Ched :  ?  21:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Newyorkbrad/Archive/2013. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, June 15!

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, June 15 at 5:30 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill ^[talk] 20:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Advice

Can you take a look at User talk:80.114.178.7? This IP is a sock of a globally-locked user. I wonder if they're using other IPs, etc, as they seem to be very active on many wikis. I've blocked this IP on Commons, and asked a CU/steward there to advise. Also, is the 1-year block good? I've seen other wikis where this IP is blocked longer. Thanks for your time. INeverCry 06:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It is possible to get a global block if you go to m:SRG. --Rschen7754 06:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I know, but the requests there are 4 days old. I also noticed that this user has shown up with two IPs in the same thread on the Meta talkpage of sysop/steward Matanya, without being blocked on Meta. The other IP, User:129.125.102.126, is already blocked here and on Commons, but is also still live on Meta. I don't feel like having to deal with this rude and confrontational person on Meta when he sees the global block request. INeverCry 15:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

See commons:User talk:Trijnstel#Erik Warmelink for further details, especially regarding a global block of the IP/s. INeverCry 00:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Connecticut v. Doehr may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)fixed. NE Ent 19:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. For a moment there I thought I had someone following my edits in real-time. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Connecticut v. Doehr may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Burnham v. Superior Court of California may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• in another jurisdiction. Procedural devices such as the doctrine of ''[forum non conveniens]]'' are available in a case where litigating in the forum would be genuinely burdensome. Brennan

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Domo arigato, Mister Roboto. Fixed again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp. may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Constitution]]. Thus, "the only issue decided by the District Court was that [Chick Kam Choo's]] claims should be dismissed under the federal forum non conveniens doctrine. Federal forum non

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Jax

Can you look at the case of "Jax 0677" currently at ANI? It seems to me that the community restrictions are self-contradictory and basically baiting him to break his topic ban whenever he "may be asked to assist" by editing exactly the types of pages he's not allowed to edit. I honestly don't understand the big bruhaha over some nav templates, but I've seen several admins go ballistic over an AfD with a forgone conclusion and yet more duke it out over infoboxes (that is still currently featured at ANI), so this about par for Wikipedia 2013... 86.121.18.17 (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I was pretty much offline the day you posted this. I see that the ANI thread is now resolved, so hopefully there will be no more issues. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Connecticut v. Doehr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bond (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixing, thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Need your opinion on a BLP matter

Hi. Can you offer your thoughts in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Responded there. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Newyorkbrad. You have new messages at Russavia's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Responded there. Please note that I automatically watchlist any page I post to. Talkpage templates are not necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Brad, I made this post at Jimbo's talk page, which included a question directed to you as the administrator who imposed Russavia's restriction. I would be interested in his thoughts on my proposed idea but obviously wouldn't want anyone to break a restriction, so I asked if he can respond there. If not, is he permitted to respond to the idea on his own talk page? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 04:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for posting. I think it would be better if we allow the discussion on Jimbo's page to wind down, but it would be okay for Russavia to respond on his own page, as this wouldn't be editing about Jimmy per se. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I have invited Russavia to comment on his talk page. EdChem (talk) 05:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon Invitation

Please join the Chemical Heritage Foundation Edit-a-Thon, June 20, 2013. Build content relating to women in science, chemistry and the history of science. Use the hashtag #GlamCHF and write your favorite scientist or chemist into Wikipedian history!

I noticed you're busy elsewhere for Wiknic, so I thought I'd mention this event. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't make the date, and have only a layperson's knowledge of chemistry and the history of chemistry, but it sounds like a good event, so please let me know if there's another one.

(I suppose I could make a bad pun about how our science editors will be in their element, as this type of event leads to bonding between contributors, but I am trying to rise above that sort of thing.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Reporting an unacceptable personal attack

Hi NYB, seeing as you have taken it upon yourself to deal with me I am now asking you to deal with personal attacks against myself. This is below the pale -- calling myself and another editor "parasites" is disgraceful. I will no longer be sitting idly by and putting up with personal attacks on myself on this project. Please take action against that. Russavia (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Hm, what does one do with a user who calls another user retarded, while suggesting that their penis be sliced off to avoid the possibility of them having children? (source). Tarc (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Russavia, I think you might mean "beyond the pale". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

When it is telling a group of trolls for the 3rd time to stay away from them, you block the trolls and allow the editor to edit in peace. But on this occasion, well the harassed is dealt with severely, whilst the harassers get a free pass. How broken is English Wikipedia? Russavia (talk) 08:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the term "parasite" is divisive and should not be used to categorize contributors. However, I see that the editor has clarified his comment, explaining that he is using "parasites" to mean (my paraphrase) "editors whose contributions are mostly one or more steps away from actual content creation." For better or worse, that may describe your contributions lately, and it certainly describes mine over the past few years (although not the past couple of weeks!). Personally I don't think this is a valid metric for evaluating an editor's value to the project, as there are plenty of legitimate reasons for non-mainspace editing, this discussion being one of them; but I can't say that reviving the circa 2006 call for "less talk, more writing" is inherently illegitimate, although I'll end where I began and repeat that the sentiment can be expressed in a less inflammatory manner. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep, so in other words, you will do nothing about it, not even a warning. Thanks for showing me that it is totally ok to engage in personal attacks on other editors on this project. This is just another example of how English Wikipedia is broken. Russavia (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Newyorkbrad, but I must insist now that you take action on this. Wer900 has posted the following off-site:

Russavia percieved rightly being called a parasite a "personal attack". What does he think of the people who have been affected by his drama?

So his "clarification" is bollocks, and you should be taking action against it. I've always been honest on this project, and expect the same of others. Perhaps an interaction ban prohibiting Wer900 from commenting on or interacting with myself is warranted here, given the great differential between their on-project and off-project comments and intention of those comments. Russavia (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

NYB, I do get what you are saying above, trust me on that, what I will no longer put up with on this project is unadulterated and continued personal attacks directed at myself, and Wer900's comments offsite can only indicate that he meant it purely as an actual personal attack, and this goes against our so-called collegial atmosphere. I expect the same courtesies extended to myself that any other editor would received. Hence why I think an interaction ban on Wer900 commenting on and interacting with me is totally warranted, and I do ask that you deal with it appropriately. Russavia (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't perceive a sufficient basis at this point for imposing an interaction ban on Wer900, but I have asked him to stop commenting about you on Wikipedia. Hopefully this will help alleviate some tensions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, appreciated. Russavia (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Special BLP enforcement restriction

You really should rescind this user's topic ban, both because it sets very bad precedent, and because it is effectively no less a form of workplace bullying than what it purports to address. I am not going to sugarcoat the fact that I instinctively checked to see if your name was up for election after seeing this, and I don't have a vested interest in either of the associated parties, nor do I have any problem with you personally. That's how infuriating it was at first sight.   — C M B J   09:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

NYB, did you know that I have a B.Com with a double major in Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations, and that I was part of a small team that helped to implement a sexual harassment policy and equal opportunity policy in a government department which has several thousands employees, and was later employed on contract with a mining/engineering company with around 8,500 employees (at the time) and one of the achievements under that contract was the implementation of a workplace sexual harassment policy. So given that I have PROFESSIONAL HRM/IR experience in sexual harassment policy, let me say that I can only concur with CMBJ on this point. If this was a workplace in the real world, which others are portraying these projects as, and under Australian law, I would have the right to take the issue to court for actual harassment in the workplace. And of course, we have unfair dismissal laws here in this country (something you guys don't have) which would prevent the further retribution by the accusers and guilty parties with threats of dismissal. And because these accusations are being made publicly, I would also have a civil case for the outrageous and totally libellous accusations of sexual harassment being levelled against me. (Jimmy's accusations do a great disservice to actual victims of sexual harassment in the real world). This is not a legal threat, but simply a clarification of how things work in the real world, given people want to apply real world standards to this project.

But let me say this, let's leave the "Jimmy topic ban" in place as yet another demonstration of how truly broken English Wikipedia is, and how totally clueless people in authority on this project are when it comes to management of human resources (it's editors). Russavia (talk) 10:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an exercise in free speech. Contributors should not use sniggering art as a weapon, and NYB has once more done the right thing. A certain amount of venting is to be expected, but to characterize User:Russavia/Pricasso in terms of "dissent and progressive viewpoint" is absurd. Johnuniq (talk) 10:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't used "sniggering art" as a weapon, and if one reviews the whole sordid mess, one will see that it is not myself who has engaged in trolling, but User:DracoEssentialis -- who just happens to be the wife of User:Jayen466 (who is banned from JW's talk page) -- and was blatantly responding to a call for trolling from banned trolls on Wikipediocracy. Here and here is her trolling (she also abused the rollback tool, yet that has not yet been removed...why?). All I've done is uploaded freely licenced art, and put it into an appropriate article-under-development. Any other use by other editors is not my problem; but yet, here we are, I'm being "punished" for the acts of others. Go figure. And we come back to this project being clueless on matters of HRM and how broken it is. Russavia (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

(e.c.) CMBJ is absolutely right. Brad's actions are clearly 100% related to his upcoming candidacy in the elections in about sixteen months time. At his 2007 election, Brad received 552 supports and 15 opposes, a support rate of 97.4% and was elected to a 3 year term. Thanks to his rampaging through the wiki doing as he pleased with no thought about the encyclopedia, his support plumented at the 2010 election to a mere 89.0% (591 supports, 186 neutral, 73 opposed). Despite this, he scraped back on to the Committee as the first elected, and another 2 years of out-of-control self-aggrandising ego-driven editing resulted. Things turned at the 2012 election when the community recognised his intrinsic evil, dropping his support to an all-time low in his ArbCom career (584 support, 151 neutral, 89 opposed, a support rate of 86.8%). Based on this trend, re-election in 2014 (assuming he runs) is likely to see more than 100 oppositions and only a relentless and vicious campaigh against some innocent editor (like Russavia) will see him have any chance of gaining even a scintilla of approval from a community baying for blood, just as the Romans did when throwing Christians to the Lions. </sarcasm> Seriously, CMBJ, Brad has never fit the shoot-first and damn the consquences model of Arbitrator, and his actions have regularly been criticised as too lenient towards alleged disruption. The idea of him acting against Russavia motivated by political expediency is absurd, not least because the popular over-reaction would have involved a ban or stirring up a mob at a drama board, but also because he needs to campaign for masses of additional support by changing his style in search of cheap populism about as much as he needs to have his kneecaps replaced with fetta cheese. EdChem (talk) 10:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I never intended to imply that he was motivated by political expediency in any way; rather, that this particular action caused me to instinctively question whether I would support (or actively oppose) him as a candidate in any upcoming election. That doesn't mean I would be unforgiving—we all make mistakes from time to time—but I shared my gut reaction in order to communicate the severity of what appears to have transpired here. He is open to rebuke, as am I, and either of you may take or leave my criticism as you each see fit.   — C M B J   11:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I accept that you intended your comment to refer to your voting intention. Unfortunately, it is also open to the inference I drew, and I suspect I will not be alone in seeing an implication of political expediency. It is good that you have clarified, which will hopefully be helpful for Brad and other readers / editors. EdChem (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the perspectives above. The only thing I would like to re-emphasize is that the action I took yesterday was not taken in my capacity as an arbitrator. I realize that this distinction only goes so far in some people's eyes (per comments on this page a month or so ago), but it still may be important to point out. Regards to all, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Availability note

I'll be offline most of this afternoon and this evening attending a family event. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI, I've noted my concerns here about the topic ban you imposed on Russavia. Incidentally, it looks like you forgot to record the sanctions in the appropriate place. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I logged the restriction on the editing restriction page, see link on Russavia's talk, which I believe is currently the appropriate place. I will respond to the substance of your comments on Jimbo's talkpage tomorrow (I can't stay online now). In the meantime, I'd just point you to the comment I made in posting the restriction that a founder of Wikipedia is not entitled to greater protection under the BLP policy, but he isn't entitled to lesser respect under the policy either. More tomorrow. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

NYB, I really do think that you should just sit back and do nothing at this point in time. First and foremost, you should allow their drama to subside of it's own accord. But if they decide to continue with the obvious witchhunt in progress, then leave them to it and see who will be hoisted with own petard. Furthermore, whilst the restriction you have placed does not preclude me from discussing things on JW's talk page, I am staying away from it by my own choice (largely for the reason above), and knowing that now it would be inappropriate to be discussing a restriction on myself in a venue that I am staying away from, and will not comment at -- come to my talk page instead; that way there will be no more furthering of the drama, and some civilised discussion can occur if required. But having said that, I know what the restriction entails, so if anything you should simply be telling these editors (with now clear obvious motives and agendas) to move on there's nothing to see here. Russavia (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on Jimbo's talk page

I'm not sure if you knew but there is a discussion about one of your decisions on Jimbo's talk page. Kumioko (talk) 00:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

And after 24 hours I thought that this situation might be resolved with a minimum of disputation and drama. Silly me. See thread just above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikipedia is many things but drama free is not one of them. :-) Kumioko (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Newyorkbrad. You have new messages at Suri 100's talk page.
Message added 07:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Suri 100 (talk) 07:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Need help finding a Supreme Court case

From Baltimore Sun: In 1987, the Supreme Court rejected Mr. [James] Stanley's claim in a 5-to-4 vote, pointing to a federal law which prohibits soldiers from suing the military. But Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said she found the case "so far beyond the bounds of human decency . . . it simply cannot be considered a part of the military mission." Is there a Wikipedia article for this Supreme Court case? It relates to Edgewood Arsenal experiments. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

United States v. Stanley. Calidum Sistere 05:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's the case. It looks like that article could use some touching up, though. Maybe I'll put it on my to-do list, now that I have kind of sort of rediscovered the general direction of the mainspace. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Join us this Sunday for the Great American Wiknic!

	Great American Wiknic DC at Meridian Hill Park
	You are invited to the Great American Wiknic DC at the James Buchanan Memorial at Meridian Hill Park. We would love to see you there, so sign up and bring something fun for the potluck! :)

Boilerplate message generously borrowed from Wikimedia NYC. To unsubscribe from future DC area event notifications, remove your name from this list.

Harej (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties

If you enjoyed Freedom for the Thought That We Hate, hopefully you might also like Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties.

The book is quite a fascinating read.

I hope you're doing well, — Cirt (talk) 07:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice user page.108.207.243.46 (talk) 03:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Cirt, you might be interested in the new biography of Floyd Abrams that was recently issued, which discusses his role in several important First Amendment cases. You might also enjoy reading the article I drafted this week on In re Snyder, which involved a freedom-of-speech issue, although it was ultimately resolved on non-constitutional grounds.

108..., thank you. I believe it was User:Mets501 who originally helped me format the page. I haven't seen him around much lately, but given his current activities, he is excused. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Brad, have you read the Abrams biography? I have not yet, but I did read some of the author's blog posts recently. I wasn't terribly impressed, but if you recommend it, I might consider picking it up. NW (Talk) 05:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I have the book here but have only skimmed it thus far. I think I will enjoy its "backstage perspective on some famous cases" angle (a genre I always associate with Irving Younger and more recently with the "Law Stories" series), plus I'm familiar with Abrams's law firm, as I know a couple of attorneys there (although not Abrams himself). I can't opine yet whether you would enjoy it (I suggested it to Cirt as I know he has an expertise in current First Amendment law, with which Abrams is associated). I know you have an interest in law and legal history, so if you are looking for some summer reading, I can point you toward a couple of recommendations if you tell me a little more specifically what you might be interested in. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

First Amendment law is interesting to me, but it is perhaps not my favorite. The three legal/history books I remember reading in the last year are Justice Stevens' memoir, Linda Greenhouse's book on Justice Blackmun, and Ratification by Pauline Maier, all of which I enjoyed. I was thinking the other day that it has been a long while since I read anything about the Gilded Age or early labor law. If you have any suggestions for something that would fit either category, I will definitely check them out. NW (Talk) 06:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting topics and not my areas of expertise at all. The last book I read relating to events in the Gilded Age was The President is a Sick Man by Matthew Algeo, which was wonderful reading (I first became aware of him from Harry Truman's Excellent Adventure) but not really a rounded history of the era. If you count the very end of the 19th century as the tail end of the Gilded Age, the new biography of John Hay is said to be quite good as well, though I haven't picked it up. On early labor law I will defer to others.

If you enjoy judicial biography, the book you most want to read is Learned Hand: The Man and the Judge by Gerald Gunther. It's clearly the best biography of an American judge who never served on the Supreme Court, and along the way it covers lots of substantive legal history including the First Amendment (sedition, obscenity), intellectual property (copyright, patent), and a number of other areas. For Supreme Court Justices, there are great biographies published in recent years of Chief Justice Warren, Justice Brennan, Justice Rutledge, and Justice/Chief Judge Cardozo, among others. (The good Warren biographies will be of interest in connection with the thread you and I were in concerning Brown v. Board of Education a couple of weeks ago.) For some lesser-known First Amendment history, Minnesota Rag by Fred Friendly tells the story of Near v. Minnesota (1931), which is a good reminder that the evolution of First Amendment law as we know it today was by no means inevitable.

Happy reading. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I definitely will be stopping by the library this weekend. NW (Talk) 17:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Your views on censorship

Hi NYB, would you mind if I were to ask you over the coming days about your views on various issues, which mainly will touch on censorship on this project, of both articles and images. Is this something you are open to do?

Image for Question No 2

1. What does ceci n'est pas une pipe mean to you?
2. What does the image to right portray to you? (describe what you see both in visual and non-visual terms)

Russavia (talk) 05:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Break

Since you're both on this page, I'll just post here. At the article Pricasso I've removed the link to Commons (for the time being) put there by Russavia. It seems inappropriate while the deletion discussion is going on at Commons. It also appears to be a violation of Russavia's topic ban, which includes "indirectly" ... "posting pictures", which is exactly what he did. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

And now he's reverted twice, inviting an edit war. I won't bite, but he's clearly out of line. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

As have you, and in fact you ignored WP:BRD and reverted twice first, and inviting the edit war, and not to mention your general harassing attitude towards myself both here and on Commons. I suggest you stay away from me in future; because like I said on Commons, I've been collecting diffs on ALL of you for the last 12+ months. But I've reverted now, so Smallbones, you are the only one who has blatantly ignored WP:BRD and has edit warred.

NYB, what an interesting can of worms you have opened for yourself here, hey? :) Russavia (talk) 04:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

"I suggest you stay away from me in future; because like I said on Commons, I've been collecting diffs on ALL of you for the last 12+ months." Sounds like a threat. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

As the link {{commonscat|Pricasso}} contains the image which led to Russavia's topic ban from all-things-Jimmy-Wales, and that he is once again edit warring to retain such a link, IMO it is time to throw the book at him. I'll leave it to NYB to rule on if possible, but if he's away for an extended time and doesn't had a chance to look at this, I'll bring it to WP:ANI tomorrow morning. Enough is enough. Tarc (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The rush to have a DYK containing one of the Commons images is concerning. After copy-pasting (instead of moving) the article to mainspace, Russavia requested that the userspace draft articles be deleted. The creation history of the article, including the contributions of others, is now not viewable to non-administrators. I have commented on the DYK page. Mathsci (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Russavia/DYK is what I'm good at. Why is me going to DYK such an issue given my history? You know I've always been a good article creator, except I haven't been around on English Wikipedia for 12 months -- but trust me more than 70 other projects just know how good I am at creating articles whilst I was absent from English Wikipedia LOL. I'm baaaaaack. Russavia (talk) 04:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

(e.c.) I have begun a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Pricasso proposing that the DYK be put on hold until the various controversies calm down and the article becomes stable. I believe that, once the history is restored, it will be clear that DYK rule D6 prevents this nomination proceeding until the article is genuinely edit war / conflict free. EdChem (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with it being put on hold, so long as it will be given full and fair considering at DYK as every other article that is nominated by others (and by myself in the past). Russavia (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Russavia, I last looked at the article in your user space before the protection... based on that, my gut instinct is that it would be suitable for DYK, with a suitable hook, so just to be clear I am not advocating it be rejected - if I were, I would have commented differently. I am concerned that the move to main space and the DYK nomination will set off a brush-fire, and am trying to lay down some fire-retarding foam for the sake of the DYK project. EdChem (talk) 05:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I understand that, and I wasn't having a go or anything. I fully support your reasoning. You know some years ago, I expanded Fucking, Austria and put it up for DYK. It had the potential of being the most viewed DYK of all time, but it was hidden in the "novelty" section and got bugger all views, because of the POV of the DYK admin that is was inappropriate to have the word "Fucking" on the front page, even though it had nothing to do with that. You also also know that I've discussed this article with several arbs/admins/stewards, etc who are on other Wikipedia projects and their opinions are that the article that how I intended it to be would be no problem on their projects. I guess at some stage this project is going to have to look long and hard at it's censorship of our content. But yeah, let's not worry about that right now. But EdChem, what makes you think I am going to face further sanction judging by discussion here? Russavia (talk) 05:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you notice Tarc's post and the edits to Pricasso since it reached article space? EdChem (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

On the same topic Smallbones has noted above, Russavia has also just issued a similar threat against me: "I would sincerely suggest that you step back, and stop making such attacks against myself, because I am now collating diffs against yourself for future possible use" in response to my post at: Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Pricasso. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

(Writing a response to all this now. Please stand by.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I certainly hope it will entail a request for the personal attacks against myself to stop. I would be very, very disappointed if it didn't. If I hadn't been subjected to 12+ months of a constant barrage of abuse and personal attacks by numerous editors, I would never have to keep such diffs. Editors doing something else other than following my edits and the like would be the advice I'd be giving, so that I can do useful things too. Russavia (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to preempt your considered opinion Brad, but I am sure I am not the only one who has had enough of the disruption and controversy that Russavia appears to be reveling in. I have blocked them indefinitely and placed the block up at ANI for discussion.[1] Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad response

(Edit conflict with Spartaz above)

Russavia, I'm glad to discuss these issues with you as long as the discussion stays on the line of productive and not provocative.

When I see or read ceci n'est pas une pipe what I think of more than anything else is how it and some other works of Magritte's were used in Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas Hofstadter, a transformative tour-de-force of a book that I highly recommend to anyone reading here. Hofstadter riffs further on the use-mention distinction in a couple of chapters of Metamagical Themas, another of my favorite books ever. (Anyone who follows my edits excessively closely *waves to a couple of folks on Wikipediocracy* has noticed my shout-out to Hoftstadter and Raymond Smullyan every time I sign a guestbook.)

Incidentally, I can't mention Hofstadter here on Wikipedia without noting that when I first become of what Wikipedia was and how it works, I thought of this project as something he might have anticipated and hoped he would admire. Instead, it turned out that he read his BLP and it contained a bunch of errors and he said it made him sad. That in turn made me sad. I just looked at his article again and it seems to be in much better shape. There is some bickering at the bottom of the talkpage about whether an e-mail from Hofstadter saying he's happier with the article can be referenced; that sort of over-focus on the letter of internal policies at the expense of getting the content right also makes me somewhat sad, although this sort of focus on meta and meta-meta issues in the case of Hofstadter might be considered ironic.

But I digress.

I don't really understand what you were intending to ask me about the bodypainting image, but I'm afraid it doesn't particularly appeal to me or move me. Chacun and all that.

On the more general topic of "censorship," it is a truism that Wikipedia is not censored, but as I've written before in other contexts, in the case of a content dispute this statement must be the beginning rather than the end of the analysis. We are not censored in the sense that we do not adhere to arbitrary lines, particularly ones imposed externally, concerning what we can write about and how. But the statement that we are not censored, and that we do not censor ourselves, does not mean that we do not use our own collective editorial judgment about what we will include and what we will not. When we collectively decide that Joe's Garage Band does not meet our notability requirement and therefore delete an article about it, we may or may not be making a wise decision, but we are not "censoring" the good-faith editor who wrote the article. When we delete an article about a living person who was the subject of an Internet meme because its contents, while true, are gratituously damaging the subject's life, we are making an editorial judgment about how our encyclopedia treats the people affected by what it says, not "censoring" ourselves in any pejorative sense.

In the same vein, but closer to home, when we say that we won't include a depiction of a living individual that he and others reasonably perceive as having been instigated for the express purpose of including it on Wikipedia to annoy or harass him, we are making a value judgment about how we treat one another. And when we ask a contributor with a history of getting into quarrels arising from articles about national and ethnic disputes to refrain from posting cartoons that have proved nationally or ethnically divisive, we are working to maintain a harmonious environment on our collective project, not "censoring" anyone.

As for the issues surrounding Pricasso, some of your comments here and their tone support your critics' view that you are being provocative on purpose ("trolling"). Indeed, given everything that has occurred since you returned to English Wikipedia a few months ago (beginning with your first edit summary), it is increasingly difficult to avoid that conclusion. This is especially disappointing given that in your post the other day, you tried to create the impression that you were stepping away from pricking this particular blister. I personally have not endorsed all the criticisms of you from various sources in recent weeks (for example, I thought that classifying your query about Bulgarian copyright law as a topic-ban violation was a bit hypertechnical), but we do not need editors who are deliberately playing games and wasting people's time.

Mr. Pricasso is presumably a legitimate subject for an article, although it's not an article that I personally would have the inclination or expertise to write. I still think, and am not alone in thinking, that it was grossly inappropriate for you to induce Mr. Pricasso to create a depiction of Jimmy Wales and to include it in the article. You are under my directive not to include that on English Wikipedia, and while I have no authority on Commons, I think it is grossly inappropriate for you to include it there either, and I instruct you not to link to it.

Your turning the Pricasso article into a vehicle for taking a gratuituous snipe at a living person who happens to be a leading Wikipedian has made the article grossly internally divisive. For this reason, I do not believe it should be mainpaged, quite apart from any issues regarding its subject-matter.

As for the previous transgressive piece you promoted for the mainpage, I am sorry, but I have absolutely nothing to say about your Fucking article.

Finally, Russavia, your constant comments that you are collecting diffs on anyone and everyone are becoming enormously tiresome. I suggest that you drop that particular theme at once, both here and on other projects.

You are capable of making legitimate contributions without stirring up drama, when you want to. If you want to remain active on this project, clean up your act. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I have absolutely nothing to say about your Fucking article. Hee! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

That was an impressive post. I've also noticed that Wikipedians too often use WP:NOTCENSORED as a thought-terminating cliché rather than as a serious statement of principle. And it's always depressed me that our most sensitive and challenging topic areas tend to attract our least mature and least thoughtful editors. MastCell ^Talk 19:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Brad, to me your comments are, in effect, just rationalizing censorship. The idea that "controversy" should be an impediment to something appearing on the main page is basically creating a workaround for the whole NOTCENSORED argument. Controversy can occur over anything and everything. It goes further to the point of why that image of Jimbo should stay on Commons and why linking to the Commons cat should be allowed. Jimbo can go on all he likes about how he is just a "volunteer", but that is not really fair to those of us who actually do all the work that he then uses as a basis for considerable self-publicity. Not sure anyone else here gets to be friends with former British Prime Ministers such as Tony Blair or eat lunch with multi-billionaire playboys such as Richard Branson at luxurious international policy retreats. Pretty sure no one here has appeared on the Colbert Report multiple times.

He also seems to be using that description of "volunteer" for its convenience rather than because he is really that modest about his role. With his Orwellian efforts early on to rewrite himself as the "sole founder" of Wikipedia and his proud description of himself as the "Wikipedia guy" on his heavily-followed social networking profiles, it seems he simply chose to describe himself as a "volunteer" because that description was best suited for his complaint. He unquestionably profits from his association with Wikipedia in a way no other person here can claim. Under no circumstances was Jimbo's complaint about "hostile environment sexual harassment" credible in the slightest. Public figures, rightly, do not have the same kinds of protections from things that may offend them.

Maybe Russavia did get Pricasso to paint an image of Jimbo because he knew it would be offensive, but then, so what? Is every protestor who burns a politician in effigy "threatening" or "harassing" that politician? We are not even talking about something as intimidating as that. Should a BLP subject be allowed to get anything about them removed on the basis that some aspect of it causes them offense? No, definitely not, and while such talk will inevitably spark controversy as those with competing ulterior motives duke it out, the mere existence of controversy should not then be invoked as a basis for favoring the side of the BLP subject.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand that in writing an encyclopedia we will sometimes make the people we write about unhappy, but the idea that we must always be constitutionally indifferent to everyone's feelings as a matter of principle is repellent to me. As I wrote on Jimbo's talkpage the other day, that applies to a founder of Wikipedia no more than a total stranger, but no less either. I grant that there will always be borderline and difficult cases, but this wasn't one of them. The other specifics of this particular episode are hopefully moot so I think I won't be drawn into them again here, particularly since Russavia can't respond. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Nowhere did I suggest that people should be indifferent, but one has to put things in perspective. Someone who is very much a public figure accepts certain risks for that publicity. Those risks inevitably entail depictions of them that could be considered offensive. Were this a picture of anyone else on Wikipedia, even a high-profile staff member such as Sue Gardener, I would consider the objections legitimate. If it was a depiction against the will of someone who is an unrecognized volunteer through and through then I would suggest it be deleted with fire and I imagine few, if any, would object. However, Jimbo is the public face of Wikipedia to basically everyone who knows anything about the site. No doubt Rick Santorum is displeased with that neologism campaign, which is far more offensive and was indisputably meant to be offensive, but I do not think for a moment that we should not allow visual depictions of it or an article about it. When a subject is sensitive then we can make certain considerations to temper the potential damage, but removal of a subject due to offense is exactly what censorship is about and will inevitably not be limited just to the situations where you would agree.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

It may sometimes be necessary, after soul-searching and careful analysis of the relevant considerations, for Wikipedia to cover real-world acts of harassment or vexation aimed at an individual. This may be so where the incident is sufficiently notable that omitting it would leave a genuine (not merely notional) gap in our encyclopedic coverage and where it has already been so widely publicized that our covering it would not cause incremental harm to the living person affected. These situations can be extremely sensitive and fact-specific, as I have written on- and off-wiki in discussing several of them. None of this justifies our going one step further and allowing editors to deliberately harass and annoy individuals on our site itself, whether those individuals are fellow editors or not. If your view is that Jimmy Wales should be unprotected by the same norms against harassment that apply to everyone else then I reject it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Except you have to also distinguish "harassment" from "criticism" as difficult as that may be for people here sometimes. Now, again, if we assume Russavia did this deliberately to upset Jimbo personally, something I don't think we can actually say with certainty, then is it really harassment or is it more of a protest? People can spin that Santorum campaign as something other than what it is, but it is fundamentally an act of protest directed at a public figure due to a legitimate difference of opinion. I think Jimbo assumes too much to presume there is any personal grievance involved as, if it were directed at him in any way other than innocently wanting a portrait of him, it would be directed at him due to his public role as the "spiritual leader of Wikipedia" who has occasionally taken a controversial stance on the inclusion of sexual content. Fundamentally, it is only a portrait in the end and the method involved has very little bearing on how people perceive the individual depicted.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

TDA, it is not just a picture under discussion, it is a video of its production which juxtaposes Jimbo's face and a painted and painting penis. Jimbo is offended, which is hardly surprising. The sort of balance NYB is discussing is whether an editorial choice to omit said painting and video is reasonable, not whether it is mandatory. I think including a process video is justifiable assuming the article meets notability, but that does not mean this specific video should be used. As I have said elsewhere, a video of P making a self-portrait would be vastly less controversial. Whether R was offering criticism or harrassing is relevant to what to do about R, but not really to the editorial question over content. In the absence of a less controversial / offensive to a LP who has made his objection known alternative video, I think NYB is saying that no video is a reasonable editorial conclusion, and I think he's right. As for your Santorum comparison, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for protest against him, and the neologism protest was rooted firmly in the area of conflict, though it was also clearly meant to be offensive. I fail to see how Jimbo and Wikipedia are comparable campaigning to adversely impact the lives of a minority group, although I do see there are policy disagreements over nudity. I know NYB mentions coverage of real-world harrassment, but I doubt anyone will seriously argue for the Jimbo / Russavia issues to be included in article space, the omission being necessary on policy grounds like V, RS, UNDUE, and NPOV (for a start). EdChem (talk) 06:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

So you are here

Could you please reply to my email? Enough is enough 21:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.54.66 (talk)

Please reply

Please reply. You got my mail, yes?

I am not going to make assumptions on who this is. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I see your e-mail now. (I'm not always logged in to my Wikipedia account and my Gmail account at the same time.) I am considering whether and how to respond to this and your prior e-mail, but I acknowledge receiving them. Do not post further on this page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

LNC

Brad, I've closed the LNC AfD as a speedy keep. I realize that my actions may be a bit out of the standard process, but in reviewing the AN discussion along with comments made at User:Iridescent's talk page I felt it was proper, albeit wp:bold. If you feel I am in error to do so, please feel free to revert; however, I trust that you and the people who are familiar with the subject are the best judges as to how this should be handled. Kind Regards, — Ched :  ?  18:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I agree with your action. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Religion in national symbols

I discuss on the article talkpage which I tottally disagree that it is a good edit by saying that and explaination of reverting the German anthems on the article that they are bad-faith edits a.k.a. vandalism NewFranco (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

In terms of defining "vandalism," the question is not whether it is a "good edit" or a "bad edit." Vandalism is defined as editing that intentionally lowers the quality of our encyclopedia. I think the editor you are complaining about is concerned that the "mottoes" section on the article contained inaccurate information, so he has taken it out until some reliable sources for the information are provided. And if you review his overall record of contributions, it is clear that he is a good-faith editor, not a vandal, even though he disagrees with you on this issue.

I need to sign offline for a couple of hours. Would another administrator who is watching this page (yes, I see you out there!) please work with this editor and provide any other advice that might be helpful? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

NewFranco, sometimes whether something is vandalism is a judgment call. Other times, it's easy. For example, if someone adds vulgarity to an article, sometimes called "poop vandalism", that's pretty obvious. If someone intentionally adds clearly false information, e.g., changes a person's birth date to something preposterous, that's easy, too. Another example is in the case of WP:BLPs, when someone adds very negative, unsourced material. For the most part, WP:AIV is reserved for that kind of vandalism, although less obvious vandalism is sometimes considered, particularly if there's a clear pattern of it. Look at the instructions at the top of AIV where it talks about obvious vandalism (bold in the instructions). Also, look at the AIV Guide, which is also linked to in the instructions. Reporting a user with whom you have a content dispute almost never belongs at AIV.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Your move of Netherlands (terminology) to Netherlands (toponymy)

I just noticed this move. Was there a problem with the former name of the article, and had you discussed the move with anyone before you made it? Please note that the word "terminology" in a common one in English, whereas while "toponymy" may be technically more precise, it is a word that no one other than a professional geographer is likely to have heard of. Unless there is some reason not to, I am inclined to return the article to its original location, but I will be glad to consider your reply first. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I thought "etymology" is too vague and "toponymy" would be more accurate. That's all.--Io Herodotus (talk) 09:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It didn't say "etymology," it said "terminology." As I mention above, the term "toponymy" is unknown to most readers. Unless there is significant disagreement on the article talkpage in the next day or two, I am going to reverse the move. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

If you want to work on an article...

Appearance of impropriety seems in need of substantial expansion. Both in the purely legal and in the wider ethical context there is plenty of material, and I don't mean just examples. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

(Thanks for your note. I'll respond to this later.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Opinion on everyone's favorite painter and portrait

I've taken the liberty of removing the "there's related media on Commons" template, as it contains (1 link down) the image that you tossed Russavia for trying to include in the article directly. To me, it seems to be a distinction without a difference whether one directly inserts an image that has been deemed a BLP violation or if one links to a gallery where it may be accessed by an additional mouseclick. Predictably, a Commons admin (Denniss) has shown up to object. Thoughts? Tarc (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it's ridiculous that this intentionally harassing material is still on Commons, and I would not allow our site to be used to publicize it in any manner. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipediocracy

I've not digged myself far down this mess, but I noticed when browsing their forum that you are registered there. Due to a possible conflict of interest I would recommend you to not make any further edits on the article. Regards. _→AzaToth 23:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know of your concern. I am indeed registered on the Wikipediocracy site, but have had very limited participation on the site (far less than on its de facto predecsssor, Wikipedia Review) equating to an average of less than one post there per month since I registered. I note that a majority of the total edits to this article appear to have been made by people far more active on Wikipediocracy than I am.

In actuality, if I have a conflict of interest in editing Wikipediocracy, it is not so much the one you suggest I have as a participant in that website, but more as a subject of criticism on the site, where I am frequently derided based on (among other things) my status and actions as an administrator and an arbitrator here on Wikipedia. I'm also well aware that my notice of the BLP restriction I imposed on Qworty is prominently quoted in the middle of the article.

I therefore know better than to make any controversial edits to this article, have not done so, and will not do so. The edits I posted today was merely intended to cure the glaring omission from the early part of the article of two bits of basic, and I perceived uncontroversial, information. An article about a website ordinarily states when the site was created (2012), a datum that in this case was already in the infobox, so I added that. And in understanding the history of Wikipediocracy, I think it important for readers to understand that criticism of Wikipedia and Wikimedia did not begin in 2012, but that Wikipediocracy was created by a group of critics who (this is actually a bit of an understatement) were forced or chose to leave the longstanding (and still extant, but moribund) Wikipedia Review site as the result of internal disputes on that site. I am somewhat bemused that two editors saw that statement of common knowledge as requiring a citation, but I don't plan to press the point or and have no plans to edit the article further. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Organizational histories are more subject to POV and COI problems than histories of divorces.

(A parable: Consider the good-faith "history" of the history of "Socialist Party of America", which described two caucuses leaving the party in 1972, which then changed its name. In fact, the caucus starring in this account had 2 votes at the 1972 convention, and the other minority caucus had 8 votes, while the majority had 22 votes.)

If (the?) heads of both organizations agree on a statement of history and this statement is available for the public at both websites, then it may be reasonable to include a paraphrase of the statement with links to both sites' statements. On the other hand, Wikipediocracy accounts of its formation include statements that violate WP:BLP and may be libelous or slanderous or false (or all of the above); should such statements be ignored in the interest of an "official history"? Do we slant articles and history in the interests of official histories given (years later) by organizations playing nicey-nice?

WP writers have proved their incompetence to write history using primary sources, which are allowed to provide color to propositions found in secondary reliable sources. The policy is that articles are based on reliable sources. If a statement is contentious, then it may be removed by any editor, and it should only be re-added after a reliable source is found.

To see how quickly WP:BLP and intellectual integrity will be sacrificed unless WP:RS/V be enforced, look at the article's history and the talk-page proposals by Herostratus, which include trawling talk pages of Wikipedia for comments on Wikipediocracy.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand this article is very susceptible for conflict of interest, and I've no idea at the moment which would be the best solution. Thanks for understanding my concern. _→AzaToth 23:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Why not follow policy? The alternative, playing "telephone", is not truth preserving. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

What does "susceptible for" mean? Eric Corbett 23:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the grammar is a bit off, but I meant that due to the purpose of the site in relation to wikipedia, some sort of conflict of interest can be assumed by the editors wikt:susceptible. _→AzaToth 00:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I think Eric was gently pointing out that it is more usual to say "susceptible to" instead of "susceptible for". Unfortunately, it is not always easy to predict what prepositions belong with what verbal phrase other than from memory. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, idiomatic usage of prepositions (and articles) is one of the aspects of English with which non-native speakers often have the greatest difficulty. User:AzaToth rates his proficiency as en-4, so I wouldn’t expect perfection in this area.—Odysseus1479 00:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm registered at Wikipediocracy as well, although I'm now "blocked" because I objected to harassment on there from a WP admin; I really don't need to go forum shopping for harassment from WP admins. But my real point is that what actually goes on at Wikipediocracy and the unlamented Wikipedia Review happens in secret. WR, for instance, had a 300 forum, open only to those who had made more than 300 posts. It's rather strange that they complain about lack of transparency here while running secret forums themselves. Eric Corbett 23:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Your account was disabled at your request, n'est pas? --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 02:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Really? When did I request that? Do you have a link? Why the lies? Eric Corbett 02:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Another senior Wikipediocrat (to coin a term) made the same comment on WO in response to Eric's comment here, so it strikes me as possible there was some sort of misunderstanding. (Why I am trying to clear up misunderstandings about membership on Wikipediocracy, especially this evening, I honestly cannot imagine.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

So far as I recall all I did was to complain to the god Zoloft, by email, about being continually harassed by WP admin Hex. And SB Johnny knows that, because he responded to Zoloft's announcement that I was blocked. So why the lies? Eric Corbett 03:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Lies are indeed lies, Eric, as you're demonstrating right here. Have a nice day. — Scott • talk 13:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I've read that email, and while it might have been read as sarcastic under normal circumstances (i.e., not written by someone who was otherwise saying they were "done with the place", and had previously led a long discussion about how to prove to his fellow wikipedians that he really would never, ever, ever come back to Wikipedia, at least not for a while, if ever,...). Anyway, let's stop hogging poor Brad's page: if you want your account re-enabled, this isn't the place to ask, and if you don't, well, no problem. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 21:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't want my account re-enabled, I simply object to the lie that I asked for my account to be locked. Eric Corbett 22:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It's also very curious that this discussion has now been hidden on Wikipediocracy. A lesson you might consider learning is that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Eric Corbett 22:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It was moved to the off-topic forum, because it was off-topic. You could still read it if you hadn't ask for your account to be locked. (Brad can read it, because he didn't do that). Please stop accusing me of lying, I'm just reporting the facts. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Why do you keep persisting with this lie? Eric Corbett 23:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Eric, if I am reading this right then it seems, as I would have expected, you made a snarky remark akin to "well, why don't you just block my account then?" and then you got blocked. Should that be the case, as SB seems to confirm, then Zoloft and others should stop accusing you of having "asked for it" and acknowledge that you are not lying as such a comment should not have been taken as an invitation. I imagine their reasons are not really because you "asked", but because they took issue with your involvement on WO.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Eric Corbett 00:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

In my experience, the contents of the 300 Club were much like the contents of the rest of the site, only sometimes on steroids. Originally, I assume the plan was to have a non-public area where only hard-core critics of Wikipedia would be part of the discussion, but that plan became more than a little moot when people such as myself crossed the 300-post barrier and (to the site's credit) were admitted like everyone else. I know that there were some even more secretive areas that people such as I were not privy too, but I can't speak to their contents, not having been privy to them.

In any event, for a site like Wikipediocracy or Wikipedia Review, too much secrecy defeats the whole purpose. Their goal, oversimplifying slightly, is to make both Wikipedians and the general public aware of the flaws and deficiencies of Wikipedia and Wikimedia, for the purpose (depending on the day and the member) of either improving Wikipedia or bringing about its destruction or some unspecified combination of the two. For critics to whisper privately to each other behind closed doors may have short-term tactical value, and of course a critic site has internal personnel issues and tentative theories that should be non-public just like any other site does—but such a site wants and needs the majority of its work to be publicly known and disseminated, or by definition it won't accomplish its purpose. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that's about right. It's not at all clear whether sites such as WR want to see WP reformed or destroyed. Eric Corbett 00:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The typical, and legitimate, response to that question on WR or Wikipediocracy is that the members of a website do not always share the same goals and objectives and views on how to achieve them, any more than all the editors of Wikipedia do, so there's no one right answer. Even putting aside the Wikipediocracy members who are active Wikipedians, I would say that the contributors there or WR could be divided into the "Wikipedia could do a better job with some things so let's help them along" camp, the "in an ideal world Wikipedia wouldn't exist, but it's not going anywhere so let's at least try to clean it up a bit" camp, and the "Wikipedia delenda est" camp. I couldn't tell you what the ratio among the camps is on any given day; perhaps someone there will run a poll for us sometime. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Personally I'm in the "force the foundation to treat their volunteers (and BLP victims) better" camp. Lots of camps, but we all roast our dogs at the same bonfire (more efficient and environmentally responsible, perhaps). --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 21:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester

Hi, I've just raised this with the closing admin at User_talk:Crisco_1492#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FAlexander_Montagu.2C_13th_Duke_of_Manchester

I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. Particularly whether you see him as not notable because either peers aren't notable, or because court cases aren't notable. Mostly though I'm concerned about the Wikipediocracy aspect. Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I see that the administrator reopened the debate, which I wouldn't necessarily have done.

I don't know whether "peers are presumptively notable" is a good rule, although it is certainly a less good rule now than it would have been before House of Lords reform. In any event, presumptively notable is not the same thing as irrebutably notable, and in this instance I saw the presumption as being rebutted by the strong request of a BLP subject not to be the topic of a BLP being used to disparage him.

"Court cases" are not automatically notable. Decisions of high courts such as the US Supreme Court or the UK Supreme Court and its predecessor are, as are lower-court decisions that have substantive importance or establish a significant precedent—but not every trial-level case and decision in every court in the world: there are millions of these each year.

"The Wikipediocracy aspect" is neither here nor there. Although the tone and substance of the criticism on Wikipediocracy is often strident and misguided, the concerns of several contributors there regarding BLP issues on Wikipedia are legitimate and often well-founded. The fact that an unhappy article subject found it more useful to remonstrate about his article on that external site rather than with us, is not a basis for criticizing the external site.

The only real question in my mind is whether rather than an outright deletion, the closure should have been redirecting the article about the peer to the article about the peerage. But in terms of your arguing that the article should be kept after all, frankly I would have preferred if you had left well enough alone. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The thing that concerns me most here is not coverage of a very minor individual, but the precedent that complaints via Wikipediocracy (and some pretty blatant canvassing of the AfD nominator) has produced an entirely different reaction of deletion, compared to staunch refusal of past "please delete my BLP" requests from others, Jim Hawkins being the case that springs obviously to mind. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Argentine history case talk

I see the talk page for Argentine history proposed decision is now off-limits to IPs, so I will respond to your comment about accusations here instead.

You know someone is going to use language like that (the proposed language) as an excuse for a block the first time someone describes someone's viewpoint without posting a bunch of diffs. People just don't post diffs in a normal talk page discussion, and blocking people for doing it, or threatening to, is a bit chilling to discussion. One approach to civility I've seen used effectively is that a statement should be "supportable", that is if you don't agree with a characterization, you should ask someone to provide diffs, not just nail them off the bat with some obscure rule. 203.81.67.122 (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but this principle in various wordings has been included in a series of arbitration decisions for the past several years and it hasn't been a problem, so I don't think people will start misusing it now. In any event, a block is rarely the proper reaction to any infraction the first time something happens, unless the problem is exceptionally egregious. Hope this helps. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand your understanding of my concern, although I am concerned about your understanding. And this has not been understood with unconcern in other quarters (scroll down to "get stuffed"). They might have a point. I have never quite understood the purpose of voting on all those principles, but I suppose it's possible to interpret them as some kind of case law. 203.81.67.122 (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Defamation

How much longer must I have my reputation defamed like this? Please make it stop. Ignocrates (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

With regard to the substance of what is apparently a content dispute between you and John Carter, I'm not familiar enough with the material to have a view. With regard to any interpersonal dispute between the two of you, I probably should not comment since the matter might come to the Arbitration Committee in some form. Suffice it to say that both of your posts are sufficiently dense with information and technical that they are unlikely to affect anyone's reputation one way or the other. In fact, for better or worse, but the number of people who wade their way through all of that detail is likely to be in the single figures at best. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Brad. It is a content dispute only on the surface. The article was promoted to FA yesterday, and that is apparently what precipitated this outburst. JC is pushing to reopen arbitration and that has nothing to do with content. I understand your reasons for recusal. Who should I contact about getting more admin eyes on this page? Ignocrates (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there a wikiproject that this article would fall within? Administrators active on that project might be the best ones to ask for their views. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

First, I note once again how Ignocrates jumps to conclusions without any real evidence. I have basically been inactive for the past week, getting together the list of ALA outstanding reference books and putting together some ideas for guidelines for "ideas" in general. In fact, I think I mentioned last Sunday, the last day I was active, that I might not be active until today. And, actually, no, the topic of the Ebionites was included in that guideline proposal draft form for some time. Having said that, the most directly relevant WikiProjects would be the Bible, Christianity, religious texts (maybe). Also, as can be seen, I have included it in the six listed items used for pointers at User:John Carter/Guidelines discussion, which I have recently invited several senior editors and others to take part in, so that they can draft some guidelines for that contentious topic. Actually, that, with the effort of compiling the ALA outstanding reference book list, and some lists of articles in some of those books, is the reason I have been basically inactive for two months. I realize that Ignocrates rarely if ever lets relevant facts get in the way of his outbursts, of course. As I am basically calling it a day right now, I suppose it might make sense for someone to notify the Christianity project, which seems to be the most directly pertinent, and the Bible project as well, because they probably have the best knowledge about the topic. I also hope that some of those invited to take part in the discussion for making preliminary drafts for guidelines on "ideas" might take part as well, as some of them are knowledgable about the topic of religion in general and/or Christianity in particular. John Carter (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I have contacted User:Dougweller about keeping an eye on the page. Ignocrates (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Just as a heads-up, I asked both Doug and Jay to ask you to reopen Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Ebionites 2. I assume the request will need to come through one of them. I have been stalked relentlessly, on and off-wiki, for the better part of the last 2 years. Its time to put an end to this. I will need about a week to prepare my defense and another week to prepare my cross. Ignocrates (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I contacted Doug, and he advised me to work with one of the clerks to retrieve the old case file. Unfortunately, the clerks can't find the file. I have made a request to the help desk to try to locate it. Ignocrates (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

With the assistance of the help desk, I was able to locate the archived case file here. What steps do I need to take now to have this case reinstated? Ignocrates (talk) 23:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It looks as though all of the previous evidence can be filed as part of a new case. I have asked one of the clerks to help me do that here. Ignocrates (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I know what I have to do now to resolve this intractable dispute. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Question for TPWs

When I click on the red "notifications" numeral at the top of the page, nothing happens, and I certainly don't see any notifications. (That is, on my home and work computers, nothing happens. On my handheld, it's about 50/50.) Is anyone else having trouble with this? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, do you have javascript disabled? What OS/browsers are you using? Version #'s? Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

A likely more important piece of information is which MediaWiki skin Mr. Newyorkbrad is using. A screenshot is almost always useful in cases like this (as it can provide helpful context about OS type, browser type, and MediaWiki skin in a single decent screenshot). --MZMcBride (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• It is working fine for me at this time. I notice it "sticks" on me once in a while for a minute or two, but my initial thinking was that the rare sticking was a client side issue, but I can't say that with any authority. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 00:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt replies ... I'll check on those questions and get back to you (I don't maintain the software on either of my machines). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I would also note that I had some serious latency issues at home the other day, and sometimes the page would slowly load, but notifications wouldn't work. Whether that is relevant or not, I have no idea, but thought it worth mentioning. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 00:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Strangely, the orange "new messages" bar is working fine, though the red numeral is not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll better post some more on your talk page so you get more numbers. _→AzaToth 00:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that thing makes me crazy. I'd like to figger out how to disable it, but I'm afraid to. On June 10, it claimed someone I've never heard of mentioned me on the talk page of an article I've never heard of, and I can find no such mention of SandyGeorgia there.

June 10 Arianewiki1 mentioned you on Talk:Caldwell catalogue.

Besides, when I click on the red it gives me ... nothing. What is the usefulness of this thing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. I'll explain what happened.

In this edit, Arianewiki1 mistakenly added {{WP:ER}} to the page. You've edited Wikipedia:Editor review, so when the page expanded (as transclusions [{{WP:ER}}], even of shortcuts [{{Wikipedia:Editor review}} is the equivalent fully expanded syntax], do), a link to your user page was temporarily added to that talk page (Talk:Caldwell catalogue). Arianewiki1 fixed the issue in this edit. That was pretty confusing, I'll admit. I'm not sure of a great way to catch this kind of thing, but the behavior certainly seems like a bug. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

thanks for the explanation ... should I report this somewhere? Not that I have time ... thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I just filed this as bugzilla:50082. ;-) I forgot to add: the Echo notification window should look something like this: testwiki:File:Echo notifications screenshot.png. If it doesn't, please provide a screenshot of how it looks when you click the little number at the top so that we can diagnose and correct the issue. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

(To MZMcBride above) Thanks. I was using Monobook. I just switched to Vector, and now it is working. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Because Vector is the default skin, a lot of developers (especially newer developers) use it, so it's now much better tested and supported than Monobook is. (The issue we now run into that is something like 60% of power-users use Monobook, so keeping it well-tested and supported is very important.)

I use Monobook, and Echo (the extension that adds the number up at the top and provides notifications to users) mostly works fine using Monobook. It seems like there's a bug specific to your account or your setup (browser, OS, etc.). It's difficult to say, but if you're okay using Vector, it'll be better supported for the next few years at least. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, it's adorable that you use "TPW" rather than "TPS." <3

I tend to use "TPW" and "TPS" interchangeably, but you have to stop calling me "adorable," or people are going to start to talk. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

right ... TAO (The Adorable One) was Yoman ... long gone like so many others ... sigh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, as Bonnie Raitt would say... --MZMcBride (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

@MZMcBride: Following up in abject frustration ... my talk page has been active the last few days, and this newfangled thingie is horrid and making my editing experience miserable. I hate really dislike it. MZM, you seem to understand it-- it doesn't work and I can no longer read my talk page via diffs, and the notifications are incorrect and outdated, and I'm missing posts, and reading my talk is time consuming and requiring more clicks than the old orange bar did. Where did this thing come from, where did my orange bar go, how can I get rid of it, can I go back to the old orange bar that links directly to the last diff so I can read by diff, and so that I can not pollute NYB's talk page with my questions, where do I go to figure this mess out? Thanks in advance, an utterly frustrated SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia:

Broadly, this feature is called Wikipedia:Notifications (codename: Echo). It's pretty nifty, but still a bit rough in parts. I say nifty because, for example, I'm not sure I'd ever return to this conversation without the notification ping ({{reply to|MZMcBride}} let me know to look over here again).

You're hardly alone in not liking the lack of an orange bar of death or a lack of diffs. Diffs are coming soon, as far as I understand. For the orange bar, you'll need to re-enable it for your account. There are instructions here: User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/orangeBar.

As for general discussion, I imagine you want Wikipedia talk:Notifications (and its archives). There's currently a fresh thread on that talk page about diffs from Risker. But you're free to post any questions here or on my talk page, of course. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

There's User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/orangeBar.js, although I've never tried it myself. Eric Corbett 14:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you MZM and Eric ... at the moment I am too exasperated and frustrated to digest this or continue editing for the day ... I do not have time for something this stupid right now, and I wanted to quickly catch up this morning on important matters, and instead had a miserable morning. But one other thing ... a personal pet peeve ... I am trying out that new reply to template, and I wish it had a space between the @ and the editor name. Call me vain, I hate having an ugly talk page, and the lack of a space is just ugly. That's my triviality for the day :) Over and out, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It's easy enough to edit templates so I've added the space. Whether the change will stick or not is of course another matter. Eric Corbett 15:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Drama thread which might come under ArbCom jurisdiction?

Is Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 subject to the ArbCom sanctions in the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion case? It seems to be all about allowing or prohibiting abortion under some circumstances. There's a drama thread at ANI about that article, so I though someone from ArbCom should know... 86.121.18.17 (talk) 07:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there are two threads about that article now! WP:ANI#User:Arzel constant attacks and not assuming WP:Good Faith and Wikipedia:ANI#User:Anonymous209.6 POV Pushing. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 07:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The answer to this is not entirely clear to me and I don't have a strong view, so you might want to post to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and amendment for guidance. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Close Doc J RFAR

Unless the arbs are going to make a motion or group statement, I think it's time to close as without a motion/statement I see nothing further productive coming from it. PumpkinSky talk 18:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I expect it will be closed as soon as a clerk can get to it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Did anyone ask them too?PumpkinSky talk 22:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Once there was a majority vote to decline the case, someone pinged on their mailing list. If it's a little slower than usual I think that just reflects a couple of people being on summer vacation or something. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Parting thoughts on Jmh649 RFAR

This is getting posted on every arb's talk page and I will courtesy notify Doc J. I am appalled at how low the standards of wiki admin behavior have sunk. We've seen admins lose their bit for nothing more than one wheel war and yet here we have multiple instances of involved protections, edit wars, hounding new users, involved blocks, etc, and absolutely nothing gets done about it. Why? So Doc J can "adjust"? What about all his victims? What do they get?--diddly squat, just like in the real world. I actually truly hope Doc J can change, but that is not what wiki history teaches us. Wiki history teaches us he will lay low until the heat dies down then steadily go back to his old ways and he'll be back at RFAR within 6-30 months from now. Just like the arb case from my day when a drafting arb came within a hair of posting sanctions on Willbeback but didn't and what happened? Will kept going on in the same old fashion and two years and countless victims later, Will loses his bit and gets banned. And Doc J gets to use a secret mentor? He'd only not disclose that person if he felt the community would not accept the mentor, such as the mentor wasn't neutral or some such reason. By not taking this case and not issuing any guidelines or admonishments, especially with several extremely weak comments by the arbs (ie, how can some of you see nothing wrong in his behavior) all AC did here was send a clear signal to admins that there are no more admin standards of behavior and admins can do whatever they want and get away with it scott free. This juxtaposed with those who lost their bit for one wheel war also shows there is no consistency at all in AC's rulings on admins. At a minimum AC should have issued a statement on unacceptable behavior rather than turning a blind eye to the RFAR. This is an unacceptable precedent for which the community and AC will pay for many times over in the future. The UN can do a better job of fixing things than wiki and AC can, and that's really sad. This is a classic case of how those committing harmful acts rationalize their behavior and others rationalize excuses on their behalf. See you at "RFAR/Jmh649 2".PumpkinSky talk 21:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with several aspects of your analysis. I could say more here, but I hope that Jim649's record going forward will speak for itself. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree. As I said, I hope Doc future record proves me wrong, but wiki history isn't supporting that. PumpkinSky talk 22:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Lawyers on Signpost

Signpost had a brief mention of this article at Lexology, encouraging corporate lawyers to edit Wikipedia on behalf of their clients. I would have thought that a lawyer representing his client who did NOT put his client's interests above Wikiapedia's (e.g. NPOV), while editing here would be committing a violation of legal ethics. Any thoughts welcomed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)