Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Newyorkbrad (talk | contribs) at 20:43, 20 January 2014 (→SPA: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Index of archives

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

Newyorkbrad's wiki-thought for the day

(first of a series?)

You know you've been on Misplaced Pages for too long when ...

... you're listening to the radio, and they play a great song by Slade, and for a moment you think the line goes, "BLP and there ain't no source."

(signing for archive bot) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Well...

Well,Newyorkbrad, you said "a", and now is a good time to say "b", I mean unblock the user, especially with Jimbo supporting this. No, I understand that this is extremely dangerous task to unblock somebody who has been blocked for two years, and who is not going to edit Misplaced Pages anymore, but I have good reasons to believe that if you do, the sun will still set in the West, the worlds will not collide, and Misplaced Pages articles will still show #1 in Google search results. Do, the right thing,Newyorkbrad. I assure you it feels good. 71.202.123.162 (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I've posted in the thread on the administrators' noticeboard and am hoping for some input from other admins. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, you got some input from one more admin: Jimbo Wales, but here's the deal: The user states that he is no longer interested in editing Misplaced Pages. Blocks are not for punishment. Why to unblock him you need any input from anybody at all? What the worse thing that could happen, if he's unblocked? 71.202.123.162 (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Request to TPWs: I would appreciate more input in Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Indef blocked User:Trongphu still socking. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

And still there's no more inputs. I guess most admins are not here to right the world's wrongs, and not here to fix every thing on Misplaced Pages. They just don't have time. So, why don't you unblock the user yourself? Thanks.71.202.123.162 (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Well, thanks for helping this person. I guess everything has its purpose. When I was refused in the similar request I did not know what good could come out of that, but it did! If my request were satisfied, I would have kept my promise, which means I would not have been able to help this person. Who knows maybe he needed help more than I do. I am Mbz1, and I have never harassed anybody, and I have never kicked a person who is down.71.202.123.162 (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Request to TPWs for help with a policy essay

After this discussion the other day and this one last night, I am convinced that we need to fundamentally reevaluate how we as a community respond to BLP subjects (or people affiliated with them) who object to content in their articles. I am in the process of thinking through an essay and perhaps a policy proposal on this issue.

If anyone can suggest other instances from (say) the last six months in which a BLP subject come onto our wiki to correct or dispute information in his or her article, and was not treated appropriately, I would appreciate your providing a link to the discussion.

Conversely, if anyone can identify instances in which subjects were treated with courtesy and given helpful guidance on how to proceed, those would be quite useful as well.

Please note that this is a separate issue from whether the content of a given article actually violated the BLP policy. Our article subjects are entitled to respectful treatment and useful guidance (rather than, for example, a spate of template warnings)—regardless of whether their specific concern proves to be founded, unfounded, or debatable.

The purpose of this effort is not to identify specific admins or other editors who may have behaved poorly, and I hope that no one will misuse it for that purpose. My goal is to ensure that we improve our performance in this area, because while some of our written policy is sound, our facts-on-the-ground performance is too often deficient.

My thanks to everyone who can provide me help with this. I have rarely felt as strongly regarding any issue in my seven and a half years on this project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's a purported subject asking for help. Talk:Klee Irwin Notice from the article page history how the problem has festered; I first looked into this in May 2013, but was unable to resolve it. Jehochman 02:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

If you have your reading glasses on and hours of time on our hands, you can check out Talk:Matthew Bryden and related Talk archives, COIN, BLP and ANI posts. Lots of hidden text in how a POV pusher kept pointing out the PR rep's COI and goading them. It was a huge amount of work to actually enforce BLP against an editor that insisted on violating it in an overt way, using canvassing and COI accusations to deny consensus. Lots of WP:POV RAILROAD tactics, like false narratives.

I have a potential COI with this discussion? I guess maybe. Since I am sometimes the person representing a BLP. CorporateM (Talk) 08:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Kudpung handled a situation well on editor retention, but I think it had been mishandled to that point. Some of the answer could be through schemes such as the Misplaced Pages:Death_anomalies_project - OK most of the time these are no longer BLPs, but do pick up some of the most embarrassing BLP mistakes. I've also experimented with trawls for phrases such as "punched him" and tested extending that to Mafiosi and escort - the tec exists to do something sizable that way but we'd need to recruit a team to do the trawling. I think that we have the technology to tighten our BLP handling in either of two useful ways, flagged revisions as runs on DE wiki or trawling for possible infractions, the former would require consensus and probably won't get it, the latter can just expand within existing policies. As for mishandling people raising BLP concerns, yes we have a problem, but I'm not sure how to address that, whereas I can see ways to reduce those BLP incidents. ϢereSpielChequers 09:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole pinged me about this discussion. I've made some edits to this section of BLP (diff), which discusses how to handle BLP subjects when they arrive to correct errors. I've added a sentence about the need for kindness, and two shortcuts: WP:BLPKIND and WP:BLPKINDNESS. They might help to draw more attention to this. SlimVirgin 02:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the help. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• User talk:Jpmanoux was identified as the subject of J.P. Manoux and account transiently blocked until the identify could be confirmed; while he was frustrated with the length of time it took to resolve, all in all I think we did okay. He let us know he spells his name without a space between the initials; one editor gave him some bureaucratic MOS nonsense but another just moved the article to the preferred spelling. While reviewing the occurrence in preparation here, I've noted that many articles spell his name wrong; I've asked the smart folks at Village pump (wikigeek) if there's a way to fix that suitable for a lazy Ent.

• Personally I think the existence of this article is disgusting; it represents a concerned and successful attack to demean a person. I find it unfortunate that our policies have made us accomplices in the continued references to it; that is, it really can't be argued the article doesn't meet WP standards of being well-sourced from reliable sources. At this point, a decade later, the Misplaced Pages article is a (or the) primary factor in keeping it popping up on google searches. At one point there was some effort to have the primary search term for the individual link to a disambig page but fortunately wiser heads prevailed. NE Ent 23:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again to those who commented. I'll hopefully get this essay written in the next week or two. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Your thoughts on response to Mass Surveillance

I just wanted to point you to a discussion ongoing about whether we should join with the EFF, Mozilla, Free Press (organization), and others to respond to mass surveillance on Feb 11.

I will leave it to your own judgement about whether you should offer your opinion or not. You have a unique and singular role in the project. More than anyone else on the project, you are our "trusted, neutral referee", you're our "Solomon, the wise judge" that people can go to to settle disagreements.

So I wanted to alert you to the on-going discussion about if, and how, we should participate. I know I, for one, place great stock in your words and your analyses--- and I'm hardly alone in this. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very sincerely for your letting me know about this discussion and also for the kind words about me personally. (I'm not sure I'm the judge people use to settle disagreements; there are plenty of times when my arbitrator colleagues have outvoted me 14 to 1. But I digress.)

I've read the discussion on Jimbo's page and everything I might have had to say has been pretty well covered by others. Suffice it to say with my lawyer and public policy hat on that in the analogous context of cellphone metadata surveillance, I sympathize with much of what Judge Leon wrote—but there is also great merit to Judge Pauley's observations about why at least some of this activity is necessary. All of us—I believe—wish we lived in a world in which the neither the United States Government nor any other government had reason to engage in widespread Internet monitoring or any interest in doing so. Alas, that is far from the case.

I think there is merit to Misplaced Pages's promoting awareness of the need to balance legitimate governmental objectives with the avoidance of unwarranted intrusions into the personal privacy of the general population. And of course, our content will cover the ongoing controversy about where to draw the line. I am hesitant to see the project qua project "take sides" in disputes that don't relate directly to Misplaced Pages and Wikimedia. This one of course is related to an extent, but only to an extent.

From the discussion on Jimbo's talk, it looks like the consensus is emerging to do something relevant on the main page that day. We have previously attuned the main page content to something going on that particular day, such as the presidential candidate biographies on Election Days, which may be a useful precedent to point to here. I would not support a site blackout, and I'm not sure that banners on every page are the way to go, either, though it remains to be seen just what the proposed banners will say.

If I think of anything useful to add to the discussion, I will go there and add it, but I think I've said my piece for the moment. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Meta on infoboxes

Request

Newyorkbrad, last night I asked Jimbo a question about the arbcom transparency, and he agreed with me that "everyone should have the chance, in public, to face their accusers and rebut claims". I have never had such an opportunity.

I state:

• I have never wikihounded anybody.
• I have never threatened anybody.
• I have never made legal threats
• I have never posted personal information of anybody
• I have never posted private correspondence by anybody
• I have never engaged in user space harassment

I state that each and every statement I made in my RFC was supported by at least one on-wiki diff.

I am not interested in editing any Misplaced Pages sites ever again, but I'd like to leave your project in peace, and hopefully help others in a similar situation to do the same. In order to do it one of two things should happen:

1. I am presented with valid evidences (supported by diffs) I harassed somebody. Then I would review them and apologize.
2. If #1 cannot be achieved I am unblocked and allowed to leave in peace. 69.181.42.248 (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, there were lots of screams and lots of lies during my persecution, the lies I was not allowed to rebut, but there was no single evidence of an alleged harassment. It happened almost 2 years ago. Isn't it about time to present the evidences, if any, and let me to rebut them? Would you please do the right thing.69.181.42.248 (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• 76.126.141.88 and 69.181.42.248 appear to be sockpuppets of indefinitely blocked user mbz1. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Meetups coming up in DC!

Hey!

You are invited to two upcoming events in DC:

• Meetup at Capitol City Brewery on Saturday, January 25 at 6 PM. Please join us for dinner, drinks, socializing, and discussing Wikimedia DC activities and events. All are welcome! RSVP on the linked page or through Meetup.
• Art and Feminism Edit-a-Thon on Saturday, February 1 from Noon – 5 PM. Join us as we improve articles on notable women in history! All are welcome, regardless of age or level of editing experience. RSVP on the linked page or through Meetup.

I hope to see you there!

(Note: If you do not wish to receive talk page messages for DC meetups, you are welcome to remove your username from this page.)

Harej (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Move like this

Move Like This
by 28bytes

I like this move, thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

No wonder I got no reply for this ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

An eye

Are you keeping an eye on Robert Spitzer (political scientist)? Hipocrite (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I had to be offline for about 24 hours but have just taken a look at the recent editing, and posted on the talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Please feel free to add entries

User:Newyorkbrad/List of editors with oxymoronic usernames

Perhaps FerociousLettuce, CarnivorousFungi, Cowardly Lion, AtheistJewInGermany, IntelligentFool, WalkingTelephone, SingingLemon, and Oxymoron? EdChem (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, for one. The scope of oxymoron is not very clearly defined, with a spectrum ranging from logical or semantic self-contradiction (like NativeForeigner, a ‘strong’ example), through practical impossibility and grotesque incongruity, to mere oddity or non sequitur.—Odysseus1479 05:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Oi,my user name is a song title. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

No "inspiration credit" for the Ent? NE Ent 13:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Manning

For the information of those who were involved or are interested in the Manning naming dispute, you may be interested in this decision issued today by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Note both the majority opinion by Judge Thompson and the dissent by Judge Torruella.

I am mentioning this here as a point of information only. Please do not discuss the merits of the court's decision or reopen the article-naming dispute on this page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting decision, thanks for the link. If I may, a couple of questions:

1. Am I correct in thinking a case on Manning's rights would go to the 10th Circuit?
2. Would this 1st Circuit decision be seen as persuasive?
3. Is this the sort of case that the Supreme Court might take, to consider the 8th amendment issues?

I hope asking these questions is ok, I am not asking about the merits or agreeing / disagreeing with the decision made, just trying to see if I understand the implications. Thanks, Brad. EdChem (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

SCOTUS is unlikely to take on a case until there is a circuit split on the issue, so if people are looking for SCOTUS to endorse the 8th decision, they should ironically hope for Manning to go to the 10th circuit and lose, to encourage SCOTUS to resolve the split in their favor. Until that time, this decision only carries precedent in the 8th, but judges elsewhere are free to be persuaded or not (constrained by any local precedents). Being persuaded or not (imo) probably has more to do with pre-existing political/social biases than the argument in this ruling, unless there is some water tight logic somewhere. Also, the applicability of this precedent will be highly dependent on the findings of fact being similar in any other cases. as discussed in the ruling, the circuit reviewed the law de novo, but only evaluated prior findings of fact for clear error. Lots will depend on the subject at hand and what type/severity of gender issues they have. Also the applicability of the logic in this ruling (even where it is water tight) depends on the scope of the prior precedents this court relied on. If those are SCOTUS precedents, or precedents that have been confirmed in multiple jurisdictions, the ruling will be more likely to be repeated in other circuits. If most of the prior precedents were local, then the other circuits have a blank slate. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

YGM

--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Received and now responded, albeit a day late. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

SPA

Since you requested all involved editors to step away from the Robert Spitzer (political scientist) article, we all did...except the SPA account Lightbreather, who has been having her way with the artcle. She has a HISTORY of article ownership issues, and edits gun-control related articles exclusively. Her "mentor" StarryGrandma recently embarrassed Misplaced Pages by denying the article of a prominent reporter of the New Your Times. She was overruled with THIS Snow Keep. You may already know that I am pro-control, just as these two editors are, but they are not putting Misplaced Pages ahead of their own politics. Next to them I look like a constitution waving, assault weapon toting redneck. I will not edit the article until you have finished your review, but I hope you finish it soon. They are not putting the encyclopedia first. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I do not think your characterization of User:Lightbreather as an SPA is helpful here. Rather than argue about that, could you please explain in a little more detail why you think Lightbreather's edits are problematic. Please give specific examples. The most direct point on which the two of you disagree on the talkpage seems to be the use of the word "activist," which can be addressed straightforwardly enough. Overall, my view is that the entire issue of gun control seems to be receiving undue weight in the article relative to everything else Professor Spitzer has written about and accomplished, which I find troubling. Also, while your concerns about use of primary sources are understandable in theory, is there anything currently contained in the article that you believe is inaccurate or unreliable? I prefer not to see longstanding banners on BLPs unless there is an actual, specific issue being addressed. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Newyorkbrad, for including me in this discussion. I am also including my mentor, User:StarryGrandma, because I think she ought to know what Sue has said about her.

BTW, Starry IS my mentor, and not my "mentor" - in quotes. She (Starry) has told me I must ignore people who write bad things about me, and I'm doing my best, but if you have any specific questions for me in response to what Sue has written - or anything else - ask them on my talk page and I will do my best to answer them, with plenty of diffs. I had a very stressful first 6 to 8 weeks on WP and came close to getting banned (or blocked, I never can keep straight the difference) before Starry came along (plus a handful of other editors and admins who opposed the idea - some even guys who have different ideas than I about gun control, but who also have learned to mostly AGF with me). Lightbreather (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me see what specifically Sue Rangell comes back with, and we'll take it from there. Incidentally, the reference to the Judith Newman AfC is irrelevant and I don't know why it was mentioned in this thread. That topic should not become part of this discussion, but I'll note in passing that the version of the article that was declined at AfC was very different from the version that was ultimately kept at AfD. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I have very little to add, other than to ask Newyorkbrad to look AT THIS, and see what happens when an SPA is allowed to edit unchecked. The subjects own quotes have been taken down, along with the strongest of the secondary sources. All of the secondary sources refer to the subject as an "advocate", which is the word that should be used, not "activist" which some feel has a negative connotation. And I feel that the gun control advocacy section could be limited to a single paragraph. As for Lightbreather, it *is* an SPA account, and it is attempting to whitwash the subject's politics completely out of the article, without any consensus. Creating this false neutrality is bad for Misplaced Pages, it is part of the "chipping away" that I have mentioned in the past. When people see an article written the way this one now is, they will get the impression that Misplaced Pages is not neutral at all. I asked to get a consensus about whether or not the subjects political leanings should be mentioned, that consensus so far is more or less even, leaning towards including the information (That's going by a simple count of the ivotes, which I know isn't always the main factor) But I hope that it will be part of Brad's considerations, as I am not the only person who sees things that way. Hopefully Brad will be able to come up with some guidance that everyone is unhappy with, if everyone is unhappy, it's probably fair. :) Thank you and be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the article looks to me to be in pretty decent shape at the moment. Why don't you point me to the two or three most important things or quotes that you think are not currently included, or are included but shouldn't be, and we'll work with that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Ars longa, Vita brevis

OK, I am not Horace. But I think there might be a decent motion which someone might propose on the order of:

The Arbitration Committee has many times in findings and principles affirmed the extreme importance of WP:BLP being strongly followed. To that end, any misuse of sources for any biography of a living person, or any use of a biography of any living person or article related thereto to defame any such person without extremely strong sourcing shall be treated as being under discretionary sanctions, to be enforced specifically at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, and any articles where such improper edits or actions occur shall be clearly labeled as subject to discretionary sanctions.

Legalistic enough? Collect (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)