Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:22, 21 November 2014

Archives

Index of archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Resolution

Dear Newyorkbrad, please see this polite request, and provide a positive thoughtful response there, if you have one. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC).

Court decision citing Misplaced Pages articles about Hasidic Judaism and Chabad

See Lubovitch-Chabad House of Illinois, Inc. v. Northwestern University, decided today by the Seventh Circuit. Opinion by Judge Posner and a short concurrence by Judge Bauer. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• I would be lying if I didn't admit that made me a little uneasy, knowing we often have articles vandalized or in the middle of POV wars. I'm sure the article wasn't a deciding factor, but it still raises the bar on accountability when any US Court of Appeals uses us as a source. Dennis - 2¢ 01:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It is funny that the section they're citing has no single reference to a reliable source. 117.27.245.98 (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oy vey. What next? Misplaced Pages-guided surgery? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

If by Misplaced Pages-guided surgery, you mean that a surgeon might provide patients with a list of background sources to use in learning more about their disease, and that such a list might include Misplaced Pages articles. I frankly wouldn't be surprised if some doctors already recommend Misplaced Pages to their patients. (Whether or not they should do so is a separate question.) But neither such hypothetical doctors, not the judges in this case seem to be relying on Misplaced Pages to guide their actions. Rather the judges simply seem to be suggesting Misplaced Pages as a way to learn more about a topic peripherally relevant to the case. Incidentally, Judge Posner, the author of the opinion in this case has a long history of citing Misplaced Pages, . and his Seventh circuit does so far more often than other appeals courts (as of 2012) . Dragons flight (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

That is still true. See here for some more sources on courts citing Misplaced Pages, a subject on which there is now a fair amount of literature. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I've had patient relatives cite something on they read wikipedia to me when discussing treatment options, and one of my colleagues saw my name pop up on a medical article on a smartphone as at the top it said "last edited by Casliber" which doesn't happen in the desktop display. Interesting times....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

If I learned that my doctor is a Wikipedian, I would have changed the doctor at once, and the same with my attorney. If I found out my attorney is Misplaced Pages's arbitrator, I would have fired him. To survive being an arbitrator one should be so deliciously dishonest, so horribly cowardly... not the qualities I'm looking for... 117.27.245.98 (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Does that mean you aren't sending the retainer check you promised?? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

GGTF case

I recommend you consider a change of the point on "expletives" to "profanity", which is a much more apt description. RGloucester — ☎ 18:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, but then we'd have to distinguish among profanity and vulgarity and obscenity, which to purists are three quite different things. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, "vulgarity", as I'm sure you are aware, is about being "common", "low", or "coarse". Whereas "profanity", as I'm sure you're aware, is about being disrespectful or irreverent. Hence, I think it is quite clear that "profanity" is what is at issue here, not "vulgarity". "Expletive" is not a good description of anything. RGloucester — ☎ 18:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Man, your hope that Sitush now understands that he should not write articles about editors he's in conflict with seems to be contrary to what Sitush is actually saying. See his reponse to Demiurge in ggtf talk page please! DoctorTerrella (talk) 03:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Latin Phrase

Quousque tandem is how the First Speech against Catilina begins: "For how long are you going to abuse our patience?" The backstory is Catilina's attempt to overthrow the Senate and assassinate Cicero the evening before. It gets only more vehement and much better further in: Ad mortem te, Catilina, duci iussu consulis iam pridem oportebat! "You should have been taken away to execution long ago!" But policital realities are against taking that path: Tum denique interficiere, cum iam nemo tam inprobus ... inveniri poterit qui id non iure factum esse fateatur. Quamdiu quisquam erit, qui te defendere audeat, vives "Only then will you lose your life when no one so criminal can be found who won't believe that it wasn't done with good cause. You will stay alive as long as you find a defender."

Misplaced Pages and the Roman Senate are strikingly similar. No constitution, no laws that the members are bound by, an assembly of more or less powerful people, led by force of personality.

Do ban Carol, though. 67.255.123.1 (talk)

Yes; 67.etc but the usual takeaway from someone quoting that is simply that patience is being tried.
as far as 'Quousque' v 'Quo usque' goes, the old Romans allowed words to be run together; the two mean the same. English as she is spoke nowadays has this too, whoever, whatever, henceforth etc. The Germans love all this; some German words can be several metres long. pablo 19:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Help please

At User_talk:Worm_That_Turned#I_know_you.27re_busy.2C_but_..., I'm having trouble getting a response to my request for at least some of you on the Committee to have a look at something that happened yesterday that you may or may not find relevant to a case you're voting on as we speak. Could I ask you to have a look? Reply anywhere you like. P.S. Dennis has already "unhatted" per my request. - Dank (push to talk) 21:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I've seen it and I believe other arbitrators have also. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The statement

Sorry I wasn't able to get to it today. After seeing how the talk page has degenerated, I can understand your wish to move forward, things are quite out of control. This is the virtual version of mob violence, it is a palpable wave. I can't imagine similar outbursts against gays, blacks, Jews, ... by now the normal people would have been able to step in and revdelete everything as vandalism. Best I stop for the evening before I say something I'll regret. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 06:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Please post your statement as soon as you can. You should ignore anything extraneous and focus simply on the evaluation of your behavior in the proposed decision. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I know, I know, I'm still a bit medicated and on crutches, but stepping away from the keyboard for a while seems to have helped, and I will post something tonight. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Summary now posted here, there is a more detailed analysis of diffs upthread. Most of these diff aren't even about Gender Gap group. —Neotarf (talk) 07:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

My comment on the Proposed decision talk, and yours

Brad, I had second thoughts about speaking so unkindly to Neotarf, who is a guest in Bishzilla's pocket, and removed my post. I realize you had sort of commented on mine, or at least used my comment as a background to yours, sorry about that. I hope you don't mind. Maybe you could just change the "concur"? Bishonen | talk 00:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC).

Done. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Short

Re , seems to me a certain arbitrator is is getting very short. NE Ent 03:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Quack, quack. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Apology

I should probably apologize for my comment, even figuratively speaking it was incredibly insulting and I shouldn't pop off at the mouth like that. I think you missed the mark on the comment when it was originally made but damn it I could do better in communication sometime, either way it was out of line on my part. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy

You took a stand for me here before you were on the committee. That sure a long time ago by Wiki standards, (by any standards actually). It may have been the most acrimonious case up to that point, but seems like small potatoes compared to some that have come along since, and you have been a guiding light of fairness and decency through them all. I thank you for your dedicated service at arbcom and for Misplaced Pages. MONGO 05:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

27k worth of text added

I didn't want it to come to this but I am coming to you for an opinion regarding 27k worth of material that Rich has added to the GGTF arbcom page. Is this what you meant by responses? If everyone did the same thing as Rich here we would have a page that quite possibly would break Misplaced Pages (Or very very very slow load times). The whole thing is a wall of text and an eye sore and I ask you to address it. I will ping @Rich Farmbrough: so he knows I came here. I thought hatting the section would at least make things easier to navigate. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC):

It actually breaks search to hat it. We have a table of contents to enable speedy navigation. If a significant number of people want to address the proposed decision on an item-by-item basis (say another three or more) we could trivially refactor into a threaded discussion. I know you disagree with some of what I said, I would rather hear your reasons for disagreeing about substantive matters than waste time on formatting issues. To start with, do you support any of the site bans, and if so why? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

I understand you want to get your point across to the Arbs Rich but all I am asking is that you condense the info. There is a way to get your points across by not repeating word by word in a copy/paste format the entire proposed remedies section. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It certainly is a greater contribution, measured in terms of size, than we are used to. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

See! Eric could take lessons... All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

In all seriousness, I have to focus on something other than this case tonight, so I'll leave this issue for other arbitrators or the clerks to work through. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

ANI IBAN

Hi, you've been quoted at this ANI. Given the iban between him and me, I also request that you as an admin formally notify the subject of my complaint. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know about this thread. I do not think I would have been the proper person to advise The Rambling Man of the discussion. Fortunately, someone else has already notified him. (I also note that he's posted on his talk that he is away right now.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

It's okay, I'm around for a while longer. I look forward to any action against me. It'd be rewarding to see how such esteemed members of the hierarchy treat content editors who just vocalise their disagreement, while completely ignoring others who directly abuse people. We'll see. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

If you simply vocalized your disagreements with other editors in reasonable terms, I don't think there would be an issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

And if you didn't just wade in and act like a schoolmaster then we'd be in some form of agreement all round. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Nichols

I've sourced the plays in the 70's and 80's section and marked the nom ready. I don't know if you want to ping Thryduulf or if you think he might see that as harassment. μηδείς (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)