User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2014/Jun

Talk:Thomas Piketty

Is a splendid aggregation of personal attacks from some editors - including:

Just to refresh your memory, Collect, during the discussions about the allegations in the FT, you made repeated false assertions that Piketty had admitted (or partly admitted) fault. Asked to substantiate these, you repeatedly blustered, failed to come up with anything and then carried on repeating the same assertions regardless. This could be interpreted as you being unbelievably thick. But I don't think that is the case. It can only fairly be interpreted as you flagrantly and shamelessly bullshitting in an attempt to deceive other editors into green-lighting contentious material for a BLP. For someone who like to tout himself as a champion of BLP policy, this behaviour is beyond disgraceful.I had expected that, having been found out, you would just sidle off whistling and not darken the talkpage again. If that is not to be the case, please at least have the decency not to come back for the purpose of sniping at the ethics and conduct of other editors.,

The BLP violations posted by Collect at BLPN have been taken care of (though unfortunately not by Collect). Not sure if there are others that need to be dealt with. ,

Redact the BLP violations you made before you offer your reflections about taking pride, for pity's sake, You're just dying to stick some allegations into a BLP…,

A whole lotta bullshit Collect (and perhaps others) has been itching to add "serious allegations of fudging data", with Collect apparently believing it is sensible to do so because "the statements that Piketty used incorrect figures are admitted by Piketty at this point" -- indicating that Piketty admits he used dodgy data and thereby implying that his arguments about inequality are wrong. It's then worth noting that Piketty rejects that implication and considers the FT criticism "dishonest". (The final paragraph of that last link is especially interesting on that larger point.) So, this whole thing is textbook WP:NOTNEWS and forms an apparently much-needed object lesson for some editors re how to edit BLPs. One awaits signs of that lesson having been learned. , inter alia.

I rather think the contretemps re Piketty and the Financial Times is well known and found in sufficient reliable sources (like over eight hundred) that the fact it is not mentioned with even a single word in the BLP is an interesting view of what an encyclopedia is <g> Their mileage seems to vary. Instead, all the "discussion" seems to be pure ad hom without even a pinch of salt. Collect (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

[1] is the "unclean edit" which is found not to be worthy of inclusion in the BLP:

According to Rich Miller of [[Bloomberg News]], Chris Giles of the [[Financial Times]] said the book relies on "transcription errors, unexplained statistical modifications and “cherry picking” of sources". “Some issues concern sourcing and definitional problems,” Giles said. “Some numbers appear simply to be constructed out of thin air.” Piketty responded by saying he had to adjust statistics from a diverse set of data. <ref>[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-23/piketty-book-on-inequality-contains-errors-financial-times-says.html Piketty Book on Inequality Has Errors, Financial Times Says] Rich Miller; Bloomberg News, 23 May 2014.</ref> Collect (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Conference?

Hey, Brad,
Are you coming to the US Wikipedia conference this weekend? I was wondering if you were making any presentations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker). Apparently yes to both, see above. Bishonen | talk 01:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC).

Yes, and I'll be leading two presentations, one on Wikipedia and the law tomorrow, and one on BLP on Saturday. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Since I'd probably be banned from attending or thrown out if I did somehow get in, do you know if these venues are taped and if so if they will be available to MONGOs such as I.--MONGO 02:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I hope there will be taping, linked from the conference page. In the meantime, if you're interested, there's a link to a talk I gave a couple of years ago on my userpage. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Cool beans! Hope you all have a fun time! --MONGO 10:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It was great to meet you, Newyorkbrad, and hear your valuable presentation on BLP issues on Saturday. Thanks for answering my question, too! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Banned user

Mr. 2001 in his various guises seems to be going on a rampage this week, see e.g. my user talk page. Is there away to prevent him from participating on Wikipedia and its events for at least a week? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 10:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this particular banned user. I'll take a look, but if someone reading has more background please feel free to jump in. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I was thinking of "Mr. 2001" as a registered-account username. I'll see what I can do about the person I now think you are referring to, but please note (see above) that I'll be away for the long weekend. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@Smallbones:  Ranges blocked. AGK [•] 14:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious, AGK, how much collateral damage was done by the rangeblocks this time? 100,000 IP addresses? →StaniStani  02:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

How much time is wasted dealing with socks of banned editors? Coretheapple (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

It varies from one day to another, but overall, unfortunately, quite a bit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Name preference

I'm adding some names to images, e.g. File:2014 WikiConference USA (Group B) 32.JPG

It occurred to me that some people might prefer their real name, some might prefer their user name. Do you have a preference?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Adrianne Wadewitz Memorial edit-a-thons

Adrianne Wadewitz edit-a-thons in Southern New England

As you may have already heard, the Wikipedia community lost an invaluable member of the community last month. Adrianne Wadewitz was a feminist scholar of 18th-Century British literature, and a prolific editor of the site. As part of a worldwide series of tributes, New England Wikimedians, in conjunction with local institutions of higher learning, have created three edit-a-thons that will be occurring in May and June. The events are as follows: May 21st at Northeastern University's Snell Library, in the Digital Scholarship Commons on the second floor May 22nd at Brown University's Rockefeller Library, in the Digital Scholarship Lab June 25th at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (exact location TBA), where we will also be hosting a "how to conduct an edit-a-thon" session beforehand We hope that you will be able to join us, whether you are an experienced editor or are using Wikipedia for the first time. If you have any questions, please leave a message at Kevin Rutherford's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.

New England Wikimedians summer events!

Upcoming events hosted by New England Wikimedians!

After many months of doubt, nature has finally warmed up and summer is almost here! The New England Wikimedians user group have planned some upcoming events. This includes some unique and interesting events to those who are interested: Cape Cod Wiknic and Photography Blitz on June 14th in Barnstable County, with complete travel reimbursements available for those who participate Adrianne Wadewitz Memorial Edit-a-thon on June 25th at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (exact location TBA), where we will also be hosting a "how to conduct an edit-a-thon" session beforehand 3rd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, which will feature at least one guest speaker, and possibly many more Although we also aren't hosting this year's Wikimania, we would like to let you know that Wikimania this year will be occurring in London in August: Wikimania 2014 in London If you have any questions, please leave a message at Kevin Rutherford's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.

The Volokh Conspiracy

Good morning, @Newyorkbrad:. I am a former admin who had to give up my love when my husband, a cryptologist for the government, received orders to relocate our family to Norway for four years. Even now, though back in the states, I'm careful what I post online. As such, please delete this post when youve read it. (Not even this account is connected to our home or linked to my family.) I remember you were a clerk for the Arbcom. It is very important you respond at your earliest convenience. I think the matter will be of interest to you also. I must request confidentiality offsite, and you should expect a series of questions in order that i verify your identity. Once past those few hurdles, I'll ID myself, of couse. Once i've seen your email (or, alternatively, your email address), I'll let you know via reply how to proceed to verification. I realize this sounds cryptic (when in Rome), and I realize this is too ambiguous to be easily believed. I hope you will be willing. Having met you, I know you are not someone who would judge a book by its cover or permit relationships to interfere with your judgment. At least I am hoping not. If you are willing to post your email address on my talk page I promise to delete it once I have read it. You'll need to purge the rev hist as you wish and as i will request you to do with this post. Its only that I need to be certain posting my email address will be absolutely necessary for you to contact me; if you cannot, I will. I have disallowed user notifications but will try to check back as often as I am able. Thank you...- IBM. ElenOfTroy (talk) 10:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You can email this user by clicking the link under "tools"at left. You will also be required to code in as usual...--MONGO 11:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I do realize that; however, for reasons stated above, I declined. ElenOfTroy (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Please report to your assigned debriefing center. We will have a black helicopter waiting for you.--MONGO 14:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Now, Mongo,,, you have to stop. It's hard enough for me as it is without having someone like you putting a big smile on my face. ElenOfTroy (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

We have red-headed bellied and piliateds in our back yard. Actually we have all birds indigenous to our area. We spend about $300 a month on feed for our 23 or so feeders. This is the first year since before we left that bluebirds have nested. We're very excited. ElenOfTroy (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC) ElenOfTroy (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

NYB's email address is not a secret: Wikipedia:ARB#Individual arbitrators. WJBscribe (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@WJBscribe:@MONGO:. Thank you both. ElenOfTroy (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand this thread in the least, but WJBscribe is correct about my e-mail address. Please bear in mind, however, that it's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The ambiguity of the Allingham reference (from The Fashion in Shrouds) is curiously intuitive, but only in such an oblique and circuitous way as to lead one to believe it was more a guess than anything else. Still, the woodpecker paragraph was not intended to be esoteric, much less, a non sequitur. I just assumed the regulars of this page knew one other. Assuredly, as a foreigner, I do not. I also do not ever intend to offend, so.to clarify MONGO’s comment as sarcastic, I perused his user and talk pages. (The redhead is on the former.)

I’ll try to make this paragraph pertinent to the section title, provided it is not misconstrued as related in any way to the real association I intend to make. The exercise is meant to be helpful to NYB, but it is also useful to me for one main reason: it punctuates one of the issues encountered by WP editors, often resulting in edit wars, personal attacks, blocking, banning, etc.

It is my personal opinion that, in the face of prima facie (or other primary) evidence to the contrary, no matter how many reliable secondary sources exist to contradict it, editors should strive to collaborate, perhaps in carefully phrasing sentences, so as not to contradict the facts borne out by primary evidence (or staring the reader in the face) despite its inadmissibility.

I’ll cite the relevance to my referenced issue in the emails. The relevance to NYB, follows.

There are a couple of reliable secondary sources, one of which is cited in the article to support the last sentence in the lead section of “The Volokh Conspiracy. Clearly the sources indicate a paywall is going to appear this month, If it doesn’t, and it’s not written about, then what? It’s primary evidence. What will Newyorkbrad do at midnight on June 30th 2014 if the paywall hasn’t appeared before then? Delete the sentence? Add original research to qualify the statement, to correct the source, or remove it until it can be replaced using a reliable secondary source correctly? (Sorry, I didn’t mean to ruin your Sunday night!)

I’ve discovered a bunch of these curious exceptions within the WM environment. I plan to create new section to begin listing them. It should be fun, because it is. If you have a question, list it. If you have an answer or solution, ask the question, provide an example, and solve it with an example. (Most questions will be rhetorical.)

Thank you all… ElenOfTroy (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia: Literary Contradictions

See note below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikidoxes, Wikimorons, Wikinundrums & Such You know the real world meanings of the words “paradox,” “oxymoron” and “conundrum,” so we should expect that similar occurrences, within the realm of Wikimedia’s intellectual property, likewise have no solutions. While Wikipedia is not the real world, contradictions exist. Sometimes, they just cannot be resolved. As an oxymoron, for example, “Do you feel numb?” pales to white by comparison to Wikipedia’s “best of all time" topic: WP:WINARS, both as a template and as an article. If the content of the article is to be believed, then why are WP articles considered reliable enough to be cited, even as tertiary sources? If not, why do so many WP articles self-source or cite self-published works? And what is self-sourcing? One definition identifies the potential for an editor to create any number of articles on Wikipedia, like this series on literary contradictions, solely for the purpose of providing citations for other articles created by the same user. While all articles are, of course, subject to editorial modification by all other editors, the fact is, the publisher is the same in both cases. (It is one of the many unique policies distinguishing the World of Wikipedia from the “real world.”) The sections below encourage users to list their own WP discoveries (aka The Mysteries of Editing Literary Content in Wikiworld”). Feel free to add categories (e.g. Wikinigmas, &c.) Do not worry if you enter something, which purist literary editors may find to be inexact… they will improve upon them for us. That, after all, is the beauty of Wikipedia. References, External References, Internal WP:IS WP:NPOV WP:OR WP:USEPRIMARY WP:USESPS WP:V Workspace (Q & A) Wikidoxes [See Wikidoxes.] Wikimorons [See Wikimorons.] WP:WINARS Wikinundrums [See Wikinundrums.] Words are obviously necessary to create content for articles appearing in Wikipedia, but sources used to define them (i.e.dictionaries) are only considered as tertiary sources. If a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, does that not mean Wikipedia articles are only as reliable as a tertiary source? It is curious that dictionaries, thesauri, and other authors’ reference materials are not considered reliable secondary sources. Their objective contributions apply primarily to single words, and not complete sentences; therefore, it is very unlikely they would be used to support content as a result of thought. Wikiwillies [Wikimedia®-relevant quotations from William Shakespeare. (An homage to long-time user-editor MONGO.)]

ElenOfTroy (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@User:ElenOfTroy...As per notices on your userpage, I have nominated all these misuses of Wikipedia space for speedy deletion.--MONGO 20:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

ElenOfTroy, welcome back to Wikipedia (you may want to change the templates on your user and user talk pages, based on what you have written here). This is not appropriate use of another user's user talk page; thus, I have copied over the content to User:ElenOfTroy/Editing Wikipedia: Literary Contradictions where you can continue to work. Risker (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Greg Kohs and WikiConference USA

Dear Brad: Is this report accurate: WikiConference USA bans critic from open meeting? If it is accurate do you know if a response from the conference organizers is forthcoming? I won't spend time explaining exactly how upsetting this is and how very bad it looks on its face until the accuracy of the report is confirmed. It looks really bad, though, and I really hope there's a plausible explanation. Note that I'm not asking about the rejection of Kohs's presentation, but only about the allegation that he was barred from an event touted as "open to all participants, regardless of previous level of involvement with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia projects. We welcome the curious, the skeptical, and others wishing to engage in meaningful conversation about the Wikimedia movement in the United States, free culture and digital rights, advocacy and outreach, community building, and technology."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why you're bothering to ask the question. NYB will undoubtedly claim that confidentiality prevents him from giving you a proper answer. Eric Corbett 15:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Kohs is banned from the website...why would he even want to attend?--MONGO 15:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

MONGO, that's a remarkably idiotic comment. Who cares why Kohs wants to attend? If it's advertised as open to all and yet some people who register can be told they can't come for undisclosed reasons after they've already registered, the same thing could be done to anyone for any reason. That's not a dignified and ethical way to run a conference that evidently has sompe pretensions to academic respectability. If the conference announcement had said "open to all but banned users" I wouldn't even be asking the question. However, if the WMF wants the cachet that goes along with academic recognition, even if only vicariously, they ought to conduct themselves according to the minimal ethical standards of academia, even if only superficially. Eric, I'm bothering to ask because I want to know the answer. It seems only decent.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't even know what Wikimania is, but if it is some kind of Wikipedia related conference, and if it is supposed to be serious, perhaps the organizers felt that it would be ridiculous for a banned paid editor, particularly an abusive troll who has socked and disrupted as he has, to make a self-serving presentation on paid editing? Coretheapple (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Your original inquiry was remarkably idiotic...why would a banned editor wish to attend...as my edit summary indicated, my question was rhetorical. It sad that even after all these years he wouldnt have moved on....but sadder that some editors here seem Kohs or his arguments still have any validity. What's unique about this sort of thing? Even Conny Rice and others have been unvited or felt compelled to not give speeches or make presentations at events.--MONGO 16:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

If he wished to give a presentation on how to combat sockpuppeting, coming clean on his own activities, giving insight into why he does what he does, why he wastes people time deliberately - even bragging about it - then I can see the value of his participating in that Wikimania thing. But for him to take off his "abusive troll hat" and put on a "thoughtful Wikipedia critic hat" whenever it suits him is just a game, and no one else has to play it. Coretheapple (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Obviously whether he presents at the conference is up to the organizers of the conference. As I said specifically in my original question I'm not asking about his presentation being rejected. I have no opinion about that, it's very plausibly normal conference procedure. I'm asking about his registration being revoked and his being told that he could not attend. I have no idea about "Kohs or his arguments" regarding their validity. I don't care who Kohs is or what he thinks. It's very particularly not the issue. The conference was advertised as open to all. Kohs was evidently told at the last minute that he could not attend and evidently this was done out of process and without explanation. If this really happened, and I'm just asking NYB whether it did or not, it is dangerous for anyone who's interested in Wikipedia regardless of how wrong or idiotic Kohs's ideas may be. If the conference is not open, it should not be advertised as open. Please try to stick to the subject. Kohs has no right to present at such a conference whether his ideas are right or wrong. He probably has no legal right to be allowed to attend the conference either. He does, though, have an ethical right to attend given the description of the conference. But if the WMF wants to be taken seriously, and the description of this conference indicates that they want to be taken very seriously indeed, they should act like serious people. Serious people don't mind questions about whether allegations against them are true. Why is it so hard to understand that Kohs's ideas are completely beside the point here? Why is it so hard to understand the distinction between attending a conference and presenting at one?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I would rather Kohs didn't attend as I don't see any contribution from him as likely to be a positive one. However I care far more that Kohs and friends aren't given an easy headline of "Wikipedia bans its critics". Andy Dingley (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Who else are they banning? All I know is this one, a banned paid editor and sockmaster. Coretheapple (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Please go discuss this at Wikipediocracy or wherever you like, but not HERE on this website. This conversation is far removed from writing articles. Moreover, it is not polite to talk about a banned editor in a forum where they are not supposed to respond. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 17:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Please note that this is not any one individual’s decision but a group decision, for which I am acting as messenger/scrivener. The decision is final and is not subject to reconsideration or appeal.

— NYB

Please do not badger NYB about this situation on this page. He can surely respond here if he wishes to do so. There is no need for a pile on before he has a chance to reply (if he wishes). Jehochman ^Talk 18:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not piling on and I'm not badgering. I asked a simple question politely without any embedded assumptions and I asked it one time. Every other commenter has either, like you, told me to buzz off or else posted content-free snark. Also, (a) this has everything to do with writing the encyclopedia, (b) I'm not talking about a banned user, I'm talking about the organizers of the WikiConference, among whom is NYB, and (c) if NYB was chosen to convey the message surely it's appropriate to ask him if a response from those responsible for the decision are planning to respond to an allegation. Why don't you close every other discussion on this talk page that has to do with the WikiConference if you feel so strongly that it has nothing to do with writing articles?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Other stuff exists. Also, other conversations might not be baiting a banned user to respond here; this one clearly is. Jehochman ^Talk 19:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

If you do have a comment to make about the accuracy of the communication ascribed to you in the place mentioned, please do feel free to respond. (@Jehochman. This is very much a Wikipedia affair since the NYC Wikiconference organizers sank several thousand dollars of WMF funds into their gathering. That the matter was first raised off-site is irrelevant.) Carrite (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I really don't want to encourage socking on this page, nor do we want to talk about banned users where they can't respond. Please go to the conference website and contact them with any concerns. Note that this is the Wikipedia website, not the Wikimedia Foundation website. Jehochman ^Talk 18:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous. There are sections above that are wholly devoted to the WikiConference and Brad's role in it. This is precisely the place to ask.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

And I am quite stunned that my question can be removed like this. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

NYB's response

It is understandable that this question would be raised here, but I'm afraid I can't add anything to the e-mail that has already been published. I'd appreciate if criticizing Mr. Kohs, or for that matter praising him or otherwise commenting about him, does not become a topic here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to reply.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not interested in commenting on mr Kohs behaviour (I fully agree that we should not discuss him here, as he cannot reply here). What I am interested in discussing is your behaviour, specifically if it is appropriate to A: ban a person without giving a reason, B: ban them from a conference less than 24 hours before it starts? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Answering your questions would require discussing what the person did to merit being banned. Some of that info may be non-public information, and furthermore, that raises the problem that it is impolite to talk about a person in a venue where they aren't able to respond. Jehochman ^Talk 19:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

That's mere speculation on your part. But what not answering the question does is to cast doubt on the probity of those organising the conference, including NYB, whom it was obvious right from the start would try to hide behind his usual pretend shield of confidentiality. And to repeat what others have said, this is isn't about what Kohs may or may not have done it's about what NYB did. Eric Corbett 12:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Jehochman, will you be going around from now on and suppressing every discussion about every banned editor? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Or worse: suppress the discussion about our treatment of banned editors? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Other stuff exists. When I see something wrong, I will speak up. Just because other stuff goes unnoticed doesn't make this situation right. You both are being rude to NYB, and you are baiting Mr Kohs to violate his ban. Please stop. Jehochman ^Talk 20:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

As Mr. Kohs indicates, he violates his ban with impunity on a weekly or daily basis. I'm not "baiting" him to do anything he doesn't already do other than to drop the stick for a month, to edit anonymously on non-commercial matter in good faith, and to report his results. That would be an improvement, would it not? As for my being rude to Brad, that I have already done off-wiki; I'm certainly not intending to do it here. Quite the opposite. If he was misrepresented or misquoted and I therefore owe him an apology, all he needs to do is to say the word. I've already said my piece elsewhere and have no need to do it again. Carrite (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a sad state of affairs. I hope Brad will give an explanation of his role in this, and some insight into the decision. As a volunteer, I would not deliver a message if I thought its contents were unethical or damaging in some way, and I would hope all Wikipedians would say the same. Since Brad did deliver the message, that can very reasonably be understood to mean that he found the contents to be appropriate, and either way I hope he will explain. Everyking (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Please stop badgering NYB. He was asked a question. He answered and said specifically that he had nothing more to say. It is rude to badger somebody on their own talk page where they can't ignore you. Jehochman ^Talk 02:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

He seems to be doing a pretty good job of ignoring what is after all a very simple question so far. Eric Corbett 12:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Twice, maybe three times, Brad has been a strong advocate on your behalf...when a number of arbs were ready to ban you, he opposed that...we can always look to Brad for fairness and it's disheartening to see that you would be so ungrateful and so unable to assume good faith.--MONGO 14:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You've conveniently forgotten that he's also voted to ban me, and supported shutting me up on the topic of RfA reform, so I really fail to see what I have to be grateful for. But why are you attempting to divert attention on to me and away frem NYB? Eric Corbett 14:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

No matter the rest, Brad, if there were any doubt left that you've reached elder statesman status, the fact that you now have a crowd of people feuding over the propriety of questions asked on your talk page (rather than the substance) before you even get a chance to respond certainly settles that question. MLauba ^(Talk) 14:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Where have you got the idea from that he's had no chance to respond? Eric Corbett 15:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The four hours of back and forth and closing and hiding and restoring between the time of the initial question and NYB's first edit of the day. MLauba ^(Talk) 15:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

So you've just made it up then, fair enough. Eric Corbett 15:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

He did respond above....seems clear to me that he is not interested, so it was hatted off...time to move on.--MONGO 15:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• NYB has answered -- see his statement in bold above. Please stop badgering him. See asked and answered. Jehochman ^Talk 15:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• NYB did not post his statement in bold [2]. Regardless of who is going or not going somewhere off-wiki, on wiki basic courtesy is we don't edit other user's comments, unless they are in violation of some Wiki policy -- in which cause they are removed, not altered. @NYB, if you don't wish to be a topic here, why haven't you simply removed (or archived) the comments per standard user talk page practice? NE Ent 11:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I emphasized the statement so that people could find it amongst all the whinging and drama-mongering on this thread, which you are now regrettably adding to. Please stop. NYB is very smart to ignore this thread. A variety of malcontents are here trying to stir up trouble. He shouldn't provide them oxygen. Jehochman ^Talk 15:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Hi NYB. You'll notice that I neither criticize nor praise Greg Kohs when I post this very relevant link to a petition that I started. As of today, 22 signees refuse to attend any conference that Greg Kohs is not allowed to attend for any reason. This petition doesn't praise, criticize, or endorse Mr. Kohs' actions. I would be honored if you signed it: petition to promote truly open conferences. ,Wil (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
• There's another matter that your input would really help to resolve. I added a mention of the issue of banning Greg Koh's to the List of Wikipedia controversies, because I believed it met the criteria to be called a "controversy". My edit was subsequently reverted [reverted] with a comment that "the reasons were specified". As far as I know the only explanation given for his banning was in your organization's communication to him: "The organizers of Wikiconference USA 2014 have determined that based on a number of considerations, you are not invited to attend the conference." Would you consider those reasons "specified"? Also, a lack of sources was indicated in the comment. This issue has been covered in at least two sources, and I believe it might be incentivizing those who believe this edit should stand to find other sources to cover the issue. There is now an unproductive edit war underway on that page. Your opinion could settle the matter. I would be very grateful if you would help bring this edit war to an end. So, given this easily verifiable information, do you agree that this matter could be called a "controversy" at this point? Best. ,Wil (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Availability note

Traveling with limited online time and access this weekend (as I should have mentioned earlier); back mid-day on Monday.

Note to Midwesterners and Wolfeans: the Park Square Theater (St. Paul, Minnesota) stage production of Rex Stout's The Red Box, adapted by Joseph Goodrich, is Satisfactory and should be seen. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

last sentence of your recent ANI post

I think you mean unblock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Fixed. And my thanks to Andy the Grump as well (see the page history for why). Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

a thought

re COI, it's not really a COI, however since you were apparently involved in the decision to ban Kohs, perhaps your !vote on the page should be tempered accordingly? Alf has previously suggested that anyone who received a scholarship to the conference had a conflict of interest w.r.t the conference (a contention several including me rejected) - however I did posit that the committee that decided to ban him may not be in the best position to decide if such material should be considered "controversial" - since you may not want to believe that your own actions were controversial - so it's not really a COI in the formal sense, but there is a sense of being somehow a subject. Your insider knowledge notwithstanding, perhaps a comment rather than a !vote? Does my argument hold any water?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that is needed. Are people who want to use Wikipedia to promote an ultra liberty viewpoint recusing? How about anyone who contributes to WO (who might be suspected of wanting to promote attempts to subvert the encyclopedia). Johnuniq (talk) 04:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not talking about NYBrad's political philosophies more generally or what web forums he haunts in his spare time, I'm saying that if he went into a room, decided to do X, walked out of the room, and then is asked "was X controversial enough to be added to this article", could NYB be truly neutral about same, since it involves a decision he actually participated in making? It's not editing an article about himself, but it is, indirectly, editing content about a decision he was one the few people involved with, if I understand correctly. It's a minor point, and I'm only suggesting that he consider recusing himself from actually voting in the discussion in the same way an involved admin would not use his tools? In this case he'd be recusing his right to !vote. As to your other point, WO forum members would not be conflicted by my logic, but Kohs of course would be. I suppose that's a moot point since Kohs is already editing there and has already !voted, under the pseudon***CARRIER LOST***

Looking at it again, NYB clearly stated his COI, so I suppose whether he puts his comment under "oppose" or elsewhere isn't that big of a deal. Nothing to see here, go about your business.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. If you aren't jesting and if Mr. Kohs is actually participating in that discussion about himself via a sockpuppet without disclosing it, a claim I am extremely reluctant to accept without powerful evidence, then it would be doubly problematic, secondarily because he is indefblocked or banned and not allowed to edit at all, and primarily because his conflict of interest in that discussion would exceed mine sevenfold. (And if you are jesting, it might be best to say so, as I'm sincerely not sure.) And with that I am going to again step back from commenting on this matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

sorry I thought my being cut-off midstream by nefarious ninjas clipping my modem cables would have illustrated I was kidding...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. My apologies for my humor detector's not being well-honed at this insomniac hour. I empathize with the pain of having a punchline squashed like this. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Follett v. Town of McCormick

I'm working on a CCI, one of the items is an article about a law case - Follett v. Town of McCormick

The sections called Facts of the Case and Prior History is mostly a copy paste, with very light editing, of the text in the Findlaw summary.

I am assuming that the text of actual Supreme Court decisions is public domain, even if copied into a copyrighted document. However, I wasn't sure to what extend the wording in Findlaw was a straight copy from the opinion, versus a Findlaw editor's summarization.

If I go to the Wikisource page and chose the "Opinion of the Court" it appears, if the Wikisource was done correctly, that the copied text is virtually all from the decision. Which would make it OK (except that the reference needs to be added.

I'm also mulling our rule that we do not Wikilink inside quotes. This isn't strictly a quote, but darn close.

Do we consider it acceptable to write an article about a case where virtually all the content is copied from the case? I am sure it is not a best practice, but is it allowed?

Any thoughts you have would be appreciated. --S Philbrick(Talk) 14:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@TPS, I see that brad will not be around until Monday. On the one hand, this is not a rush. On the other hand, I'm addressing it to Brad, because he is the first lawyer who came to mind. Anyone else is welcome to chime in.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

As best I can tell from what you've linked (and to the extent I can read it on a Blackberry), the Findlaw page basically is the opinion of the Court, followed by the separate opinions—I don't see a separate editorial summary section. (Obviously it's a relatively short opinion, which is not unusual for Justice Douglas during this period.) So we should be okay from a copyright point of view, although I may take a shot at copyediting the article for style and sourcing. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. My narrow focus is whether I need to do anythign to address copyright concerns, and it sounds like that's not the case. If you want to improve it editorially, that would be great. In fact, when I read it, I saw the line That judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court of General Sessions for McCormick County and then by the Supreme Court of South Carolina. and was surprised at the conclusion, but reading closer, I see that SCOTUS overturned it, but I do not see why. There seems to be a gap between the South Carolina opinion, and the result, mentioned in the lead, but not explained in any way. To add a pedantic, but hopefully important point, the lead is supposed to summarize the body of the article, and I do not see anything in the body except for the name of the Justice delivering the opinion. --S Philbrick(Talk) 23:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The article clearly has the sense of being half-finished. I would ask Pseudo-Richard if he plans to return to it (in his own words), but I see he hasn't been active in several months. If no one fleshes out the substance in the next few days, I will do so, although I must admit it's a case I hadn't heard of before. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Does this claim[3]:

The wealth of the Koç family, however, originates from money and property which was appropriated through the Armenian Genocide in 1915. The confiscated Armenian but also Greek property led to the emergence of a new wealthy social Turkish class.

Make a claim affecting living persons which can be deemed "contentious"? I have this peculiar notion that claims asserting that a family profited from genocide are particularly contentious, requiring exceeding strong sourcing. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this sort of claim should be strongly sourced. I don't have the subject-matter expertise to evaluate the specific sources that have been offered. (And I'd also caution that as a general matter of historiography, we should be wary of ascribing any phenomenon or event to a single cause where the actual events were more complex.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I was told I was "emptyminded" on this, and that it is perfectly proper as an edit <g>. Collect (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Worse news: The "sources" do not remotely support the claims made in the first place. Collect (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

And that material is still there - argh! Collect (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Next up -- Marco Rubio being labelled a "climate change denier" which was one of the general BLP issues in the Climate Change case IIRC. I suggested conservative wording, but those who appear to regard Rubio as a major player in the climate debate seem intent of,IMO, overstating what he says, and using newspaper headlines as thought they were part of the article proper :(. Cheers -- looks like the "American Politics" ArbCom case disaster is yet to unfold. Collect (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that someone is going to use your comment that "I suggested conservative wording" out of context someday.... Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

That has already been done too damn often. Meanwhile, MastCell (with no advance warning) posted at WP:ANEW - including his claim that (apparently) the use of "climate change denier" is not "contentious" and that it is essential that readers be told about such evil-thoughters. I fear he did not read the Climate Change decision (sigh). BTW, the Infobox officeholder RfC seems to have been totally ignored at this time. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Your summary of my viewpoint is disingenuous and mistaken, and the lack of any actual diffs to back your claims should raise red flags in that regard. As for advance warning... I tried that the last time you edit-warred and violated 3RR, just a month or two ago. I gave you a heads-up rather than reporting you. And you responded aggressively and gave me a bunch of BS about it—even though you were the one violating policy, and I went out of my way to be courteous and give you a chance to self-revert. I'm past the point in my wiki-career where I keep doing the same thing and expecting different results from people. This time, I gave you a courtesy notice when I posted the ANEW report, as per our best practices, and now it's up to someone else to decide how to handle your 4 reverts. MastCell ^Talk 00:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Why not ask NYB how he feels about the edit which made you so upset? [4] is a nice simple example for him to judge the righteousness of your umbrage. If he deems it improper per WP:BLP,you shall not see me edit there again. If he deems it proper, I ask that you apologise for your indignation. BTW, ANEW notices are not done out of "courtesy" - they are an absolute requirement there. (You must notify any user you report. is in big red letters) Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not volunteering to be the Official Referee of Disputed Edits (though it might be a better wikijob than some I have now), but since you ask so nicely... I'd say that that is a proper edit, though I'm not as sure as you (Collect) that it's an essential one: I see the distinction you are drawing between "labeled" and "called" now that you've pointed it out, but had you not done so I would have thought the words more-or-less synonyms in this context. "Jones has called Smith an XYZ" and "Jones has labeled Smith an XYZ" both say nothing about the views-of-Smith of anyone other than Jones; and while the subjectless passive "has been called/labeled" is more open-ended and implies that there may be more than one Jones, it doesn't go so far as to say that the whole world, or the editorial voice of Wikipedia, agrees with the Joneses. But as I say, I think this level of nuance would evade 99+% of readers of the article. I'm not sure if this helps, but it will have to do for 3:00 a.m. Regards to both of you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Let me explain where my "umbrage" is coming from, as best I can. It's not the content of one specific edit that has me frustrated. It's the constant recourse to edit-warring. These are not BLP violations. They're not even close. These are simple content disputes and editorial preferences, and as such they should be discussed rather than ramrodded into the article at a clip of 4RR/day. I'm not asking Brad for a judgement here, but in my view Collect constantly frames his personal content preferences as matters of urgent BLP importance to justify what is, in reality, simple edit-warring. It's sort of a maddening experience to try to edit an article under these circumstances - and it has nothing to do with the distinction between "called" and "labelled". It has everything to do with the tactics that editors employ to short-circuit the normal process of content development. The normal frustration of dealing with edit-warring is compounded by constant self-righteous and ill-founded BLP claims. MastCell ^Talk 23:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You mean like my edit on Maureen Dowd? Sorry if I am dismissive of your continued derogation of my beliefs in BLP strictures. I have no "content preferences" as you genteelly phrase it. Collect (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The AGF policy/guideline (whatever it is) often works to obscure the elephant in the room. I can't comment on climate change content but, I have observed both Collect's and MastCell's editing for a number of years. Collect and MastCell, each of you does, from what I have observed, have a particular ideological bent to your editing and it is actually fairly obvious and doesn't take long to detect at all. Collect, however, from what I have observed, is faithful to the principles of WP:BLP. When an editor revert wars on a BLP because they believe a real-life person is being unfairly treated by WP, then they should be given the benefit of the doubt. Remember, a real-life person's life might be affected and therefore, 3RR does not apply. We need to put aside ideological differences and not be so quick to report someone to the 3RR board. Non-BLP content is a different matter, but BLPs should be handled with kid gloves. It's disappointing that WP's administration still so often doesn't understand this. Cla68 (talk) 01:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I edit from no "ideological base" at all if you actually read all my edits. Small subsets of a large oeuvre are a tad misleading at best, and are grossly abused at worst. I tend to think that BLPs should be neither hagiographic nor demonological about anyone, and that where NPOV is involved, it is better to show a saints as slightly less saintly than editors know them to be, and to show demons as slightly less evil than editors know them to be. And the use of pejoratives I regard as a sign that people wish to make sure people know saints from sinners - which would be lovely in Truthopedia, or Correctopedia, but is not a great idea for this modest project. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm jaded, Collect, but it appears to me that all the editors who were here to build a truly neutral 'pedia have long gone and those that remain are using this website to try to pursue an agenda of imposing their own, Machiavellian philosophy on the Internet, some more obvious than others. They hide behind anonymity and WP:AGF and perhaps I'm no better than they are because I do the same. Cla68 (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I am the damn exception to what you assumed. Collect (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Cla68, who were these neutral editors then? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I would expect that most of the 1,000 editors listed here would be good examples. I thought your question was a good one, so I started a thread on Wikipediocracy in response. All here are welcome to participate in that thread. Cla68 (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the meta-question was why these random BLP questions are being raised here on NYB's talk page, instead of on the BLP noticeboard that is intended for questions of that sort. It's probably better in general for arbcom members to not get too tangled up in such content development questions where there is potential controversy, unless they themselves are already involved in writing the content. That way if a dispute does arise that arbcom has to deal with, they can come to it with fresh eyes. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 06:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

As the questions are posed at BLP/N, the reasoning here was prior discussions regarding exactly what ArbCom decisions and findings in the past actually meant and stated. NYB has stated he does not intend to stand for re-election, thus this is likely a good place to get the vantage point of one who was active in the prior decisions - for example whether linking people falling under BLP should be linked to the Holocaust either directly or indirectly, and whether the labelling of people directly or indirectly as "climate change deniers" falls under prior ArbCom dicta. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Final_decision and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Final_decision, and a slew of AE cases about "Armenian genocide" in the past. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Final_decision and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Final_decision among others. These were not "random" items brought here at all, nor did NYB aver that they were "random." I suggest you read those decisions and discussions before leaping in. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Newyorkbrad/Archive/2014. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC). 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.

From the AUSC list Guerillero | My Talk 14:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Court decision in Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC

The Sixth Circuit has issued its decision today in Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC. This is a well-known dispute involving application of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the context of a website ("www.TheDirty.com") whose goals and contents are deplorable. The court's decision can be found here. A blog post summarizing the decision can be found here.

In its decision, the Sixth Circuit takes a broad view of Section 230 and holds that Section 230 protection is not lost even where the website operator solicited contributors to post unsourced and uncorroborated "dirt" about anyone they pleased, and even where the website operator selected which contributions would be published.

The protection of Section 230 enables websites such as Wikipedia to operate without fear that the Foundation will be subject to suit anytime someone, such as a BLP subject, disagrees with the content of an article. It is a truism that Freedom of Speech under the First Amendment and statues like Section 230 protects speech we do not care for as well as speech whose value we appreciate. That being said, the decision is a reminder that those of us who care about how Wikipedia treats the subject of BLP articles must remain vigilant in keeping such articles free of defamatory, unsourced negative, unduly weighted, and privacy-invading content, as well as in using good judgment regarding which living persons should be the subject of articles at all. At least in the United States, for better or worse, the law will do little to protect the people we write about in our encyclopedia. Treating them fairly and responsible is therefore, all the more clearly, our collective, non-delegable editorial responsibility. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I am a tad unsure about your sanguine view. The court appears to view "adding comments" as not related to "developing" the improper posts, and basically stated the first course should have been to unveil the anonymous contributor(s) and to seek redress from such contributor(s). Using the reasoning of the court (and assuming it is not, in turn, overturned as it did the initial court ruling) editors on Wikipedia can not assume their anonymity is protected in any way, and that their comments anent any edits might, in the hands of some future court ruling, come back to haunt them. If a court held that facilitating such comments amounts to "developing" an improper post, then this precedent is quite fuzzy indeed. Collect (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

You are quite correct that nothing in Section 230 or in this decision protects individual contributors from liability for defamation. But that assumes that the offended party has the resources to track them down, and also that the contributors have assets with which to satisfy any judgment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The offended party only needs to track WMF down -- it is the WMF which would have to unveil the anonymous contributor. I suggest that the WMF is pretty easy to find <g>. And refusal by the WMF to break that veil, per the implications of the decision at hand, would appear to be salient to the court. Collect (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the body of case law governing when a website or ISP must disclose the identity of a user. (It is "case law" because many sites will require a court order before disclosing subscriber or contributor information in all but perhaps the most flagrant cases of abuse, in order to give the user the opportunity to file a "John Doe" appearance in court and challenge the subpoena.) It can be complicated (although, that being said, anyone thinking of posting defamatory or even controversial content should assume that he or she can be tracked down if someone is determined enough). And even when the identity is disclosed, it might turn out to be an open proxy, or a dynamic ISP that can be narrowed down only to a couple of thousand people, or someone in a country on the other side of the earth. In short, that the contributor of content that is sufficiently defamatory to give rise to liability may ultimately be held liable provides little actual protection to BLP subjects, and the greatest protection is our collective vigilance in upholding the standards and aspirations reflected in our BLP policy—a statement I expect you will find yourself in agreement with, though you and I may share despair that the goal is achievable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

My posts here are absolutely not in disagreement with you on the BLP issue, but only on your lesser concern than I have about future court decisions. The technology to track down IPs is a tad greater than some who fear "'open proxies' are untraceable" realize, and the odds of a person being "truly anonymous" on the Internet now are nearly zero. Our mutual opinion is that Wikipedia must err on the side of the living person if any doubt as to the propriety of using the material exists. Collect (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

95% agreement; "any doubt" meaning "any possible or conceivable or theoretical doubt" is a bit rigid for my taste, but you certainly have the concept down. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe the formulation is actually "any doubt which a reasonable person might have." Specifically including, IMO, allegations made by unnamed or anonymous sources. Collect (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Your recent "foray" and threats at ITN

It's abundantly clear that you've lost touch with the community on the quality levels expected from articles we promote to the main page. Please try to refrain from making childlike threats (e.g. "if you don't post it, I will") as that really doesn't demonstrate a member of our Arbcom in a good light in any way at all. I've noticed that you have made a number of misguided attempts to get involved in encyclopaedic issues lately, perhaps you need to just review where you are or what your role is here because right now you're making a real hash of most of it. Perhaps if you contributed to Wikipedia in any meaningful way, you'd still be in touch with what we're trying to do. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

NYB, I know that it can be hard seeing the ranting incoherent bile directed at you at places like Wikipedia Review from arrogant, belligerent, vindictive, and sometimes juvenile egomaniacs. I regret that it seems you have to deal with the same here at wikipedia as well so often. I am certain I could not put up with it and you have my deepest gratitude and respect for doing what I know would be beyond me. John Carter (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

TRM, let's dial down the rhetoric. I will take a look at whatever you are complaining about if you post a diff. Jehochman ^Talk 21:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

No idea what Carter is talking about, I'm talking about brad's little sojourn into ITN with threats of "if you don't post this article, I will". You can find it at ITN still, I'm on a phone so finding, copying and pasting diffs is a pain. Brad is not alone, just today we had an admin suddenly show up and start posting things to ITN. Difference is I thought Brad would know better than to resort to playground tactics and appear to utterly miss the point. The fact that four admins disagreed wholeheartedly with him was something of a relief. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll ignore the personal comments and frame the substantive issue for broader input. The disagreement between The Rambling Man and me concerns the standard of article quality necessary for an article to be mentioned in the "In the News" portion of the mainpage, and most particularly the "Recent Deaths" portion.

There are two aspects to deciding whether an article should be posted to ITN/RD, the first being whether the news development or death is important enough to warrant the mention, and the second being the quality of the Wikipedia article itself. It is common ground between us that no matter how important the news or prominent the person who passed away, an article must be in respectable condition before we can link it from the mainpage; we wouldn't mainpage a stub, or an article embroiled in a vitriolic BLP-type dispute.

Our disagreement concerns whether articles should be posted to ITN/RD even if they have some deficiencies; for example, some unreferenced (but uncontroversial and unchallenged) factual assertions, or some sections in need of further development. In this regard, I think we need to remember that mainpaging for ITN or RD is different from mainpaging for FA or DYK given the time-sensitivity of the former: if we wait around a few days to further develop the article, the story may no longer be "in the news" or the death might not be "recent," and perhaps by mainpaging reasonable but improvable articles, we can draw in editors interested in improving them.

To provide some context, interested parties can take a look at the ITN candidate page discussions for the recent deaths of Daniel Keyes and Casey Kasem. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

A fair summary, but you did overlook your threat to post it if I didn't, and you did overlook the fact that no fewer than four separate admins opposed your viewpoint. The sooner you understand you're out of touch on this the better. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm tired of the personal attacks from you in this and other contexts; the good points you make are obfuscated, not enhanced, by the nastiness. There's a whole 'nother website where someone just archly suggested creating a section dedicated to attacking me; I don't need more of that here.

To the substance: There were several editors who sided with your view on both of these articles, but there were also several who sided with mine.

Let me make a new point: An interesting takeaway from these two threads is that both articles did wind up being improved (additional references, etc.) to the point that you later felt comfortable with their both being posted, and they're on ITN/RD now. It's an open question whether knowledgeable editors would have been motivated to make those improvements if their posting hadn't been held in abeyance until the articles got better. So perhaps you come off smelling like a rose with regard to the substance of our disagreement. The trade-off, though, is that by waiting, we posted Kasem's and Keyes's "recent deaths" days after they died instead of contemporaneously. I anticipate your response that it's worth it, and you might be right; I'll be curious what others may have to say here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Its a tough call...I applaud The Rambling Man for working overtime trying to make sure that what appears on the main page is well written and etc. But...ITN should be up to date. But, ITN snippets are not TFA's either....just merely links to an article. But, those links should still lead to respectible articles as much as possible.--MONGO 21:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
• Not knowing where TRM is from or how old he is as someone who myself is around 50 I can say that there is no question to me that Kasem was to a lot of Americans roughly my age one of the most "important" (based on time spent in contact with him through his show) people in the world. Probably even more "important" to a lot of us than Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon. Keyes almost certainly was not as important but "Flowers for Algernon"/"Charly" was I think the only cinematic film my class ever saw in American lit class. And I have serious problems seeing how the comment above qualifies as a "threat". I am obviously not the most active editor here right now because some edits like this one take a while to get together, and I've never been much of a watcher of recent deaths anyway, so I wouldn't myself have likely edited either anyway. But I do think given the name recognition factor of both people in the US anyway and the number of obits about them, there is a really good chance they might have gotten roughly as much improvement quicker if they had been on the main page, and taking into account that the unreferenced material seems to have been by and large noncontroversial I don't think there would have been much good reason for BLP concerns in those articles. There is to my thinking a really good chance they might have gotten roughly the same degree of improvement maybe faster had they been included sooner by interested parties. So while I can understand the reasons for concern to a degree, I also think that in at least the case of Kasem and maybe Keyes the number of fannish oldsters like me seeing the mention here might have brought about roughly similar improvement faster if they had been shown sooner. Maybe. Thinking gets harder as you get older you know. John Carter (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
• I don't see telling someone, "If you don't post the article, I will" as a threat.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
• I'm a supporter of eliminating DYK from the front page for the usual reasons, but we keep it there anyway. ITN/RD certainly have a more legitimate reason to link underdeveloped content from the front page than DYK does, if we consider it encyclopedic at all to inform people of current events. I didn't look at the Kasem and Keyes article development histories so I don't know what condition they were in when that discussion happened. But I would say, if an article has enough info to meet the expectations of DYK, then it is probably also good enough for ITN/RD. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

See it all depends on how one sees the front page - personally, I don't have a problem with showing the world that it is a "work in progress" and having articles linked from there that can be easily identified as needing improvement. I like the idea of highlighting that it has work still needed doing and if this attracts more editors then that is a Good Thing. I have no idea whether this actually attracts editors. I do see the merits of showing our "best work" and material in as good a state as possible though, especially as wikipedia is at a bit of a crossroads in being taken seriously etc. Hence, I'd rather a rougher article on a famous person hit the RD on the day than a more polished article three days' late....however I might be in the minority. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure but it appears that some people here think that Kasem is a "special case" for RD which he clearly is not. At ITN we apply the same standards of article update and quality regardless of how many middle-aged Americans think items should be posted without hesitation. Five regular admins who "steward" the main page believe that the right thing happened, including those who look or looked after TFA, TFL and ITN. I really do believe that Brad (and others here it would appear) are out of touch on how we have done things on the main page for quite some time. If any of you wish to change this, and change the admin instructions so posting sub-standard and heavily tagged articles is permissible, I suggest you formulate an RFC and get on with it. Alternatively you could assist with the quality issues that preclude such weak items being currently posted. Or thirdly you could just moan about it and do nothing constructive whatsoever other than threaten "I'll post it if you don't". There's always a choice, some are more helpful than others. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Rambling Man, was the state of those articles better or worse than that of the typical Didyouknow entry when it gets front paged? That's not a rhetorical question-- I haven't examined the articles and don't have a clear picture of what we're dealing with. I usually don't even look at the front page, since I see it as mostly a SEO cesspool. D.y.k. makes me depressed and sometimes TFA does too. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    • It was worse, believe it or not. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Heller

Would be proud -- the RfC at Template:Infobox officeholder had, I believe, a very clear consensus. The problem now is in getting the "edit request" actually done <g>. There is no structural change to the template - so I managed to get past that hurdle. Now the claim is that I must create a "documentation subpage" where the requested edit is on the main page as it is applicable under "usage" pretty clearly <g>. I fear my latest edit request will also get the proud "not done" reply, but danged if I know any better how to accomplish what took over a month to do in the first place. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Template documentation is transcluded from its doc page. I gave you a link that will let you edit it, as well as instructions on how to find the link yourself. I'm not sure what the problem is. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks -- I regret the earlier answers did not show that link, as it is a tad non-obvious that it is so editable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox officeholder

See Charles Rangel -- an editor is edit warring to keep the irrelevant "successor" and "predecessor" names even after the template documentation was emended :). Is there any way to actually get folks to realize how silly the old system actually appears? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Possibly not. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Sunday July 6: WikNYC Picnic

Sunday July 6: WikNYC Picnic

You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" in Central Park, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck. Sunday July 6 WikNYC Picnic (RSVP). 1pm–8pm at southwest section of the Great Lawn, north of the Delacorte Theater. Also, before the picnic, you can join in the Wikimedia NYC chapter's annual meeting. 11:30am-12:30pm at Yeoryia Studios, 2067 Broadway. We hope to see you there!--Pharos (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Is this a personal attack?

"Your words dishonor the memory of Mr. Bartels and his place in the Hawaiian community".[5].

It is in response to this post to the talk page of the newly created article. The editor has had a few articles of this kind deleted recently and while I believe this is yet another non notable article, others might not, however, given that the editor is also aware of my Hawaiian heritage I see this as not only an unfounded accusation that I am dishonoring the memory of someone but that the use of such glittering generalities is attack on my cultural heritage and something this editors seems to be somewhat known for through my reading of many of the Hawaii related articles. I am trying to work with them but they really do seem to need supervision because this seems designed to just piss me off by attacking me for insensitivity and accuse me of such other things as being outside of the Hawaiian community.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

He removed the comment and left a generic apology. I asked for one specifically for attacking me about that comment and an apology was extended. I still feel the subject may not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability but can look into the specific criteria before I nominate the article. It received a DYI but to me that may not mean the subject itself is notable enough for a standalone article.

The editor has been something of a pain over the last month or so and I have been over looking a good deal of behavioral issues. There is certainly a lack of AGF, tactical maneuvering from an objection he himself made to a title move request on Fram's talk page for the article Pa'u riders (an article I recently created), where he then jumped to the article talk page to create a move request without my suggestion in the initial submission on the article talk page. When pointing out the policy and guidelines for consensus and no consensus and how it may still not have the result he was looking for, this became an issue with the MOS for Hawaii-related articles. The discussion was then moved to the MOS where the editor created another thread where he brought up the article Pa'u riders and if the article was MOS compliant.

This isn't a long history but the editor and I have several disputes from the Hawaiian related articles where he simply refused to understand the use of sources and other content in a very stubborn manner, throwing up walls of text and making suggestions that my not supporting his opinion of authors and historians was the same as questioning the author's very credibility. There is a serious pattern of disrupting my work and making accusations against me of all kinds. I believe in editor retention and I don't like being "blamed" for someone's retirement but if he is going to edit on Wikipedia he does have to stop using tactics of obstruction if I am to continue to AGF.

The editor has done a lot of work, and a great deal of it needs clean up. This is not an exaggeration. I had hoped to try and work with the editor and get over whatever hump we have in regards to our personal interpretations of sources and Wikipedia policy and guidelines, but if this type of behavior continues I may eventually have to file at ANI and begin whatever formal proceedings we have available to deal with the behavior. I am documenting this with diffs and links. This editor has had this same pattern over the years with others and they need to be discouraged from further disruption with bad faith tactics, accusations without foundations or bringing up national or community ties as a blunt object to beat others with.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The Great American Wiknic and other events in July

I am pleased to announce our fourth annual picnic, the Great American Wiknic, will take place at Meridian Hill Park in Washington, D.C. on Sunday, July 13 from 1 to 5 PM (rain date: July 20). We will be hanging out by the statue of Dante Alighieri, a statue that was donated to the park in 1921 as a tribute to Italian Americans. Read more about the statue on Wikipedia. If you would like to sign up for the picnic, you can do so here. When signing up, say what you’re going to bring!

July will also feature the second annual Great American Wiknic in Frederick, Maryland. This year’s Frederick picnic will take place on Sunday, July 6 at Baker Park. Sign up here for the Frederick picnic.

What else is going on in July? We have the American Chemical Society Edit-a-Thon on Saturday, July 12, dedicated to notable chemists, and our monthly WikiSalon on Wednesday, July 16.

We hope to see you at our upcoming events!

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 21:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)