| Revision as of 01:33, 17 June 2014 editNewyorkbrad (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,502 edits →Court decision in Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC: response to Collect← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 11:07, 22 January 2025 edit undoNewyorkbrad (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,502 edits →"Circuit Justice" listed at Redirects for discussion: reply | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{AutoArchivingNotice|bot=MiszaBot III|small=yes|dounreplied=yes|target=User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/{{CURRENTYEAR}}/{{CURRENTMONTHABBREV}}}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |algo = old(7d) | |algo = old(7d) | ||
| |archive = User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/%(year)d/%(monthnameshort)s | |archive = User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/%(year)d/%(monthnameshort)s | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{archive box|]}} | {{archive box|]|age=7|bot=MiszaBot III}} | ||
| == Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! == | |||
| <div style="height:575px; width:700px; border-style:solid; border-color:#01902a; background-color:#fff; border-width:3px; text-align:left; padding:2px;"><div style="height:560px; border-style:solid; border-color:red; background-color:#fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:6px;" class="plainlinks"><div style="float: left; width: 330px; padding:6px">] {{font|text=We wish you a Merry Christmas,|font=Lucida Calligraphy|size=23px}}<br> | |||
| ] {{font|text=We wish you a Merry Christmas,|font=Lucida Calligraphy|size=23px}}<br> | |||
| ] {{font|text=We wish you a Merry Christmas,|font=Lucida Calligraphy|size=23px}}<br> | |||
| ] {{font|text=And a Happy New Year!|font=Lucida Calligraphy|size=23px}}</div> | |||
| <div style="float: left; width: 330px; padding:6px"> | |||
| ]May your holidays be filled with peace and joy. Spread the ] by wishing another user a ], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! ] (]) 08:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC) <br /> | |||
| ''Adapted from {{tl|Xmas6}}. Spread the cheer by adding {{tlsu|User:Altamel/Christmas}} to their talk page.''</div> | |||
| == Greg Kohs and WikiConference USA == | |||
| </div></div> | |||
| Dear Brad: Is this report accurate: ? 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 "{{xt|open to all participants, regardless of previous level of involvement with Misplaced Pages 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.}}"— ] (]) 15:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Happy New Year to you, Newyorkbrad! == | |||
| :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. ] ] 15:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Kohs is banned from the website...why would he even want to attend?--] 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.— ] (]) 15:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't even know what Wikimania is, but if it is some kind of Misplaced Pages 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? ] (]) 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.--] 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 Misplaced Pages critic hat" whenever it suits him is just a game, and no one else has to play it. ] (]) 16:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {| style="background-color:#FFFBC4; border:5px solid #009600;" | |||
| :::::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 Misplaced Pages 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?— ] (]) 17:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle; padding:4px;" | ] | |||
| : 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 "Misplaced Pages bans its critics". ] (]) 17:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| |style="font-size:x-large; padding:3px 3px 0 3px; height:1.5em; text-align:center;" | ''']!''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align:middle; padding:2px;" |<div class="center">{{fontcolor|green|'''''Hello Newyorkbrad:'''''}}</div><br /><br />'''Did you know ...''' that back in 1885, Misplaced Pages editors wrote Good Articles with ]s, ]s and ]s?<br /> | |||
| Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary ]s.<br><br>] (]) 15:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| {{paragraph break}} | |||
| :<div style="float:left">''{{resize|88%|Spread the WikiLove; use {{tls|Happy New Year elves}} to send this message}}''</div>{{clear}} ] (]) 15:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Sat Jan 25: Misplaced Pages Day NYC 2025 == | |||
| ::Who else are they banning? All I know is this one, a banned paid editor and sockmaster. ] (]) 17:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {|style="background: white; color: black; border:1px solid #6881b9; margin:0.5em; padding:0.5em;border-radius: 8px;" | |||
| : 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. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| |- | |||
| :: {{quote|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}} | |||
| !colspan=2 style="font-size:150%; padding: .4em;"|January 25: ] | |||
| : 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). ] <sup>]</sup> 18:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| |- | |||
| | style="padding-left: .6em;" | | |||
| ] | |||
| You are invited to ''']''', hosted by ] at the ]'s central branch. | |||
| ::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?— ] (]) 18:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| The special focus this year will be the launch of our "400 Neighborhoods" campaign for the city's 400th anniversary and ]. | |||
| ::: Other stuff exists. Also, other conversations might not be baiting a banned user to respond here; this one clearly is. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| We'll also have ] and you're invited to sign up for one, though space is somewhat limited. | |||
| 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 Misplaced Pages 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.) ] (]) 18:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC) <small>Last edit: ] (]) 18:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)</small> | |||
| * Saturday, January 25, 2025 | |||
| : 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 Misplaced Pages website, not the Wikimedia Foundation website. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:''12:00 pm – 5:00 pm'' | |||
| *:], Grand Army Plaza | |||
| *:Afterparty: 6:00 pm – 9:00 pm (off-site venue, TBA) | |||
| |- | |||
| ::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.— ] (]) 18:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| |''All attendees at Wikimedia NYC events are subject to the ].'' | |||
| |} | |||
| :::And I am quite stunned that my question can be removed . Cheers, ] (]) 18:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <small>(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from ].)</small> | |||
| ===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, ] (]) 19:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| --] via ] (]) 17:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thank you for taking the time to reply.— ] (]) 19:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Pharos@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite_list&oldid=1263682194 --> | |||
| ==There's a script for that== | |||
| ::::::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, ] (]) 19:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, Brad. You mentioned ] an occasion when you had forgotten to check a user's edit-filter log. If you'd like that to never happen again, you may want to import ], which shows edits disallowed by filters right in the ordinary contribs list. Most convenient! ] | ] 14:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC). | |||
| ==Happy Adminship Anniversary!== | |||
| :::::::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. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- ##RW UNDERDATE## --> | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid #c0c090; background-color: #f8eaba; width: 80%; margin: 4px auto; padding: .2em;" | |||
| ! style="text-align:left;" | Happy Adminship | |||
| | style="text-align:right;" | <small>from the ]</small> | |||
| |- | |||
| | colspan="2" style="vertical-align:top;text-align:left;background:#99CC00; padding:5px; margin: 5px; border: 1px dotted black;" | | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| Wishing <b>]</b> a very on behalf of the ''']'''! | |||
| ::::::::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. ] ] 12:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| -- ] (]) 00:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ], will you be going around from now on and suppressing every discussion about every banned editor? --] <sup>'']''</sup> 19:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| ::Or worse: suppress the discussion about ''our'' treatment of banned editors? Cheers, ] (]) 19:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == "]" listed at ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| :::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. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{section link|1=Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 22#Circuit Justice}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 06:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Steel1943}} Thank you for letting me know. I've commented at the RfD. Regards, ] (]) 11:07, 22 January 2025 (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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] <sup>]</sup> 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. ] ] 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.--] 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? ] ] 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. ] ''<sup>'''(''']''')'''</sup>'' 14:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Where have you got the idea from that he's had no chance to respond? ] ] 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. ] ''<sup>'''(''']''')'''</sup>'' 15:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::So you've just made it up then, fair enough. ] ] 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.--] 15:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * NYB has answered -- see his statement in bold above. Please stop badgering him. See ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :*NYB did not post his statement in bold . 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? <small>]</small> 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. ] <sup>]</sup> 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: . ] (]) 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 ], because I believed it met the criteria to be called a "controversy". My edit was subsequently 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 02:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Does this claim: | |||
| ::'''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. ] (]) 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.) ] (]) 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>. ] (]) 15:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Worse news: The "sources" do not remotely support the claims made in the first place. ] (]) 18:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::And that material is still there - argh! ] (]) 21:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Next up -- ] 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. ] (]) 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, ] (]) 21:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::That has already been done too damn often. Meanwhile, MastCell (with no advance warning) posted at ] - 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. ] (]) 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 —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. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Why not ask NYB how ''he'' feels about the edit which made you so upset? is a nice simple example for him to judge the righteousness of your umbrage. If he deems it ''improper'' per ],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. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages, 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, ] (]) 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. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 23:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::You mean like my edit on ]? 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 13:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::I am the damn exception to what you assumed. ] (]) 14:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::@Cla68, who were these neutral editors then? ] (] '''·''' ]) 15:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::Well, I would expect that most of the 1,000 editors listed 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] and ], and a slew of AE cases about "Armenian genocide" in the past. ] and ] 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. ] (]) 12:09, 13 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 - ] | |||
| The sections called Facts of the Case and Prior History is mostly a copy paste, with very light editing, of the text in . | |||
| 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 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. --]] 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.--]] 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, ] (]) 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. --]] 23:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::The article clearly has the sense of being half-finished. I would ask ] 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. ] (]) 09:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == last sentence of your recent ANI post == | |||
| I think you mean '''un'''block. --] (]) 16:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you. Fixed. And my thanks to Andy the Grump as well (see the page history for why). ] (]) 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?--] (]) 04:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think that is needed. Are people who want to use Misplaced Pages 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). ] (]) 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.--] (]) 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. ] (]) 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...--] (]) 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, ] (]) 09:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==You've got mail!== | |||
| {{you've got mail|subject=|ts=14:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)}} | |||
| From the AUSC list ] | ] 14:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Court decision in ''Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC'' == | |||
| The ] has issued its decision today in ''Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC''. This is a well-known dispute involving application of ] in the context of a website ("www.TheDirty.com") whose goals and contents are deplorable. The court's decision can be found . A blog post summarizing the decision can be found . | |||
| 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages must err on the side of the living person if any doubt as to the propriety of using the material exists. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 01:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 11:07, 22 January 2025
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!
Adapted from {{Xmas6}}. Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:User:Altamel/Christmas}} to their talk page.
Happy New Year to you, Newyorkbrad!
|
Happy New Year! |
| Hello Newyorkbrad: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Misplaced Pages editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. |
- Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message Wil540 art (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Sat Jan 25: Misplaced Pages Day NYC 2025
| January 25: Misplaced Pages Day | |
|---|---|
.jpg) You are invited to Misplaced Pages Day 2025, hosted by Wikimedia NYC at the Brooklyn Public Library's central branch. The special focus this year will be the launch of our "400 Neighborhoods" campaign for the city's 400th anniversary and WikiProject New York City/400 Task Force. We'll also have a lightning talks session and you're invited to sign up for one, though space is somewhat limited.
| |
| All attendees at Wikimedia NYC events are subject to the Wikimedia NYC Code of Conduct. | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
There's a script for that
Hi, Brad. You mentioned here an occasion when you had forgotten to check a user's edit-filter log. If you'd like that to never happen again, you may want to import this script, which shows edits disallowed by filters right in the ordinary contribs list. Most convenient! Bishonen | tålk 14:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC).
Happy Adminship Anniversary!
| Happy Adminship | from the Birthday Committee |
|---|---|
  Wishing Newyorkbrad a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Misplaced Pages Birthday Committee! | |
"Circuit Justice" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Circuit Justice has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 22 § Circuit Justice until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 06:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Steel1943: Thank you for letting me know. I've commented at the RfD. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)