Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:38, 19 May 2014

Archives

Index of archives

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

Edit-a-thon invite

On May 3rd, the Peabody Essex Museum in Salem, Massachusetts will be hosting a Native American and Chinese Art edit-a-thon from 9:00-5:00 pm. You are more than welcome to attend, as there will be free food and drink, and an outing afterwards. If you are interested, please sign up here, as we would love to see you there!

If you have any questions, please leave a message at Ed Rodley's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.

Template:Did you know nominations/Natalia Poklonskaya

Hello Newyorkbrad, a moment of your time please. You said we shouldn't run this on the front page. It is claimed that, since you added your opinion, the article is seriously improved. I would like to ask you to revisit the discussion and, at the bottom, (briefly) state if you are still opposed. It is a matter of some contention, to put it mildly. Thanks in advance, Drmies (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• PS--I just saw the "family plans" notice, and if you can't weigh in until Monday, that's fine. Enjoy your weekend. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The article is certainly in much better shape now than it was when I posted that comment. (I'm idly curious whether most of the expansion and upgrading originated with editors genuinely interested in Russian/Ukrainian legal/political figures, or whether it was more driven by the need to create a frame to hang the anime stuff on, but I suppose it doesn't really matter.) I still wouldn't mainpage this if it were up to me, but in fairness, I can no longer claim it would be absurd and a BLP disaster to do so. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm, yes, somewhat, though an unequivocal "yes" or "no" is always easy, and I prefer it if you could be more black and white, which is after all the American way. Also, and I say this with the greatest respect, I don't think someone in your position (family man, ArbCom member, respected member of the bar) should use "mainpage" as a verb as if it were 2014 already. I won't template you for it, of course, but please maintain proper decorum. Thanks for taking the time, NYB; I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Meet up with us

Happy May!

There are a few meetups in DC this month, including an edit-a-thon later this month. Check it out:

• On Thursday, May 15 come to our evening WikiSalon at the Cove co-working space in Dupont Circle. If you're available Thursday evening, feel free to join us!
• Or if you prefer a Saturday night dinner gathering, we also have our May Meetup at Capitol City Brewing Company. (Beer! Non-beer things too!)
• You are also invited to the Federal Register edit-a-thon at the National Archives later this month.

Come one, come all!

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 20:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Case request declined

The arbitration request involving you (SarahBrown) has been declined by the Arbitration Committee The comments made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages meeting

I read something about a Misplaced Pages meeting in New York in May, emphasizing (IIRC) legal issues. I don't seem to be able to track down the information. Is this something you know about?--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Sphilbrick Sorry for not inviting you personally. The conference is Friday 30 May - Sunday 1 June in Lower Manhattan at the New York Law School as described at the WikiConference USA website. All are invited. Registration is free. We provide food and eight hours a day of Misplaced Pages for three days. The schedule is on that page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please see the page for Wikiconference New York. I wouldn't say the conference as a whole will (over)emphasize legal issues, but I'll be giving a talk on some. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt responses. I subliminally conflated the venue (New York Law) and the subject matter. I hope to make it for part of the meeting, will follow up.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI: Decision in the Raphael Golb case

Decision of the New York Court of Appeals (the state's highest court) today in People v. Raphael Golb, which I discussed here. The court affirmed the criminal impersonation and fraud convictions, but reversed several other counts including the convictions for aggravated harassment and unauthorized use of a computer. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Another case which is relevant to TOS violations and legal repercussions is MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting case, though it goes off on a different point from Golb. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

"right to be forgotten"

Although I realize we are not hosted in the EU, it seems like this ruling could have some impact on our BLP policies, and certainly may have a more profound effect on some of the other language wikis. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/technology/google-should-erase-web-links-to-some-personal-data-europes-highest-court-says.html?src=twr Gaijin42 (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales is not happy. Iselilja (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

This raises a host of issues for Misplaced Pages, some of which are obvious, and others of which are less so. (One consequence is that Misplaced Pages editors' decisions as to what information to include in BLPs will become even more important in affective subjects' lives if other sources of information about them are rendered inaccessible.)

I'm going to address this subject in some depth in my talks on "Misplaced Pages and the Law" and "the Current State of the BLP Problem" at Wikiconference New York in two weeks. I'll link here to the videos of those talks when they're posted after the conference. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The Google case was no surprise to anyone looking at EU privacy decisions in the recent past. It does, however, strengthen my position concerning material in BLPs pretty greatly. This is not a "partisan matter" at all (for me it was never "partisan") but one of WP following what the laws now require of us. Collect (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting development.

One would think this unlikely to have a significant impact on many of the BLP articles here in light of Misplaced Pages's notability requirement, but what effect will the disappearance of online material have? --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 16:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

We will have to be vigilant about putting everything into archive.org or something. But some of the stories I've read on the law went beyond google and said that newspaper searches, archives, or facebook links to articles and whatnot need to be taken down as well. If that type of action is upheld, it would surely be force on wiki as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to hear NYB's take on the legal implications of this, because there is a great difference between "famous people" and "ordinary citizens" with respect to information in the media.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 16:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Prior decisions make this pretty clear - the standards for any claims about living people will have to be strengthened a great deal - unless we assume EU courts will find everyone here "notable" because we assert that they are "notable". AFAICT, EU does not use that distinction. Collect (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the ruling might usefully impel us to reconsider our criteria for notability and undue weight in borderline cases. But what the overall effect will, for better or worse, be is a good deal more complicated than that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Has any major court decision anywhere been clearly for better or for worse at the time it was made? AFAICT, this one is only "for different" just like the rest. Collect (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd say "yes" to your first sentence (e.g., Plessy for the worse, New York Times v. Sullivan for the better). But my reference to "better or worse" wasn't aimed at the court decision itself, but at its potential effects on Misplaced Pages (not just English-language Misplaced Pages, of course).

I'm afraid I don't follow your second sentence; would you kindly rephrase it? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

We can have no idea right now whether it will be "good" or "bad" for how Misplaced Pages treats BLPs - it only guarantees that we will have to treat them differently than heretofore. And, at the time, "Plessy" was a "popular decision" (7 to 1 IIRC) AFAICT - no? People at the time would not have generally called it a decision "for the worse". Better and smoother phrasing? And since foreign courts do not use the Sullivan standards, it is still fairly easy to shop for libel jurisdictions (Singapore, anyone?) reducing its value substantially. Collect (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ubikwit : GNG is a much lower bar than the celebrity/politician "in the limelight" that loses privacy protections most places. We are chock full of people who pass GNG by a mile, but are still not "wellknown" who have tons of negative or personal info in their BLP.Gaijin42 (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Even so, there is WP:RS, so any online sources used in BLP articles are not likely to be ephemeral.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Even where the non-ephemeral source exists, the Google ruling appears to forbid Google from linking to such a non-ephemeral source. Including linking to Misplaced Pages where it is such a source covered by the EU ruling. Collect (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Gendering

Hi, I don't normally make much of a fuss about this, but I prefer to be referred to in gender neutral terms on-wiki. This can normally be done by referring to my account name or just defaulting to "they" when it is necessary. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Noted. I hope it's okay if I use "Fae" as opposed to "Fæ." Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

No worries. One of my legitimate alternative accounts is Fae, so there can be no confusion. --Fæ (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

A question about redaction

While archiving the Gun Control clarification request (now archived here, Lightbreather asked whether you or I could answer a question posed in that request, which I believe is repeated at my talk page. I think Lightbreather is correct that this question will get lost in the process if not asked again; I do not feel comfortable answering, so promised to alert you. (Not a rush, I know you have other things on your plate).--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The request has been archived into obscurity, so unless the accusations are extraordinary bad, it might be best to drop the redaction request. If appropriate, a courtesy-blanking of the page or section in question might work. If there are follow-up questions, the arbitrators who drafted the case might have more background than I. (Unrelated PS: don't miss my note on your talkpage). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, assuming for now that what's done is done - for future reference, 1. Is asking for a redaction bad form? and 2. Is it OK to redact something one says in an ArbCom discussion? (If I understood Scal, ArbCom comments should be left unredacted.) Lightbreather (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have a strong view one way or the other, as long as I can figure out what is going on. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Kurtis 08:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Received, and responded. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

A pie for you!

I baked it myself. (No arsenic, I promise.) I hope the pie's sweetness shows that I feel no bitterness toward you for the topic ban. Steeletrap (talk) 04:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Please eat this first. It's important to have well-balanced meals. If you eat the pie first, you'll spoil your dinner! Steeletrap (talk) 04:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Fear and retaliation

Regarding this, you wrote than an editor should not feel any "fear of retaliation" for expressing his or her opinion. Can you see why many Wikipedians nevertheless feel this kind of fear is very real and valid? Do you think it is a problem that people feel that way? Do you think anything should be done about it? Everyking (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of my edit there was to allow the IP to continue participating on that page, rather than have him or her keep being reverted, which is what otherwise was going to happen. I did this even though I disagreed with what the IP wrote, and even though the letter of policy would support reverting that edit (under the "participate in project-space discussions through your main account" principle). It is frustrating that efforts to bend over backwards to allow dissenting voices to participate are cited as attempts to stifle criticism. The old saying that "no good deed goes unpunished" comes to mind and I not for the first time wonder whether such efforts on my part are worthless, if not actually counterproductive.

(Sometimes I feel that if I write on Misplaced Pages that "the sky is blue," someone on Wikipediocracy is going to say "that idiot Newyorkbrad denies the existence of nighttime"; and if I write "the sky is blue except at night," someone is going to say "Newyorkbrad's artificially cheerful approach is to pretend there are no clouds"; and if I write "the sky is blue except at night if it's a clear day," someone is going to say "Newyorkbrad is a scientific illiterate as he's obviously never heard of solar eclipses"; and if I write "the sky is blue on a clear day except at night or when there is a total eclipse of the sun," someone is going to say "look at that longwinded, pompous ass Newyorkbrad who can overcomplicate and wikilawyer even the color of the sky, and he's probably a lousy lawyer anyway, and anyway let's make rude comments about him for no reason six more times in this thread just to piss him off." I vent, but I digress.)

I do not agree that editors who criticize administrators, arbitrators, Jimbo Wales, the Wikimedia Foundation, or all of the above, are in legitimate fear of retaliation such that they need to post via anonymous IPs rather than their registered accounts—even though I catered to the IP's stated concern in this specific instance. Several editors, including both administrators and non-administrators, posted in the thread you cite as well as the related thread on Jimbo Wales' talkpage without being retaliated against or expressing fear of such retaliation. It is absurd to suggest that editors aren't free to criticize one or more arbitrators, or the Arbitration Committee as a whole. As I've said before, I think that among the long-term editors on this project, there are only about four who haven't strongly criticized ArbCom at some point or another, and three of those are probably bots. If we spent our time retaliating against anyone who's said a harsh word about us we'd do very little else. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)