User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2013/Sep

Closing RFC

Hey there! According to the page, you agreed to close this RFC a month after it started. It's that time now, so I just wanted to give you a little poke. Cheers! Tazerdadog (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I'll review the RfC and write up the closing within the next couple of days. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you free next Thursday? Join us at the Wikimedia DC WikiSalon!

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next WikiSalon, which will be held from 7 to 9 PM on Thursday, September 5 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon is an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill ^[talk] 15:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Can't make it this week. Soon, I hope. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Takes Brooklyn! Saturday September 7

Please join Wikipedia Takes Brooklyn scavenger hunt on September 7, 2013! Everyone gather at the Brooklyn Public Library to further Wikipedia's coverage of— photos and articles related to Brooklyn, its neighborhoods and the local landmarks. --EdwardsBot (talk)

Regrettably, can't make it this weekend. Hope to see you all (the participants, not the bot!) at another event soon. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Fodder for motion

NYB, you seem to be fairly proficient at writing motions. Perhaps you could do something with these ideas to create a motion in lieu of a long and nasty case:

Findings of fact

0. The Chelsea Manning page move discussion was a horrible mess.

1. Regarding transexual issues, a small group of editors are familiar with the topic and understand best practices to maintain the human dignity of transexual subjects of Wikipedia articles. Another small group of editors is actively hostile toward transexuals. A large group is unfamiliar or has minimal experience with the issues.

2. Best practices for writing biographies of transexual subjects including using the subject's chosen name and pronoun (he/his or she/her), and avoiding use of their "dead" name, which can be highly insulting.

Principles

3. It is never acceptable on Wikipedia to make hostile comments toward any racial, sexual, ethnic or national group. Editors who make hostile remarks may be blocked for personal attacks, harassment, or disruption, depending on the circumstances, severity and frequency. In the first instance an appropriate response may be to identify the inappropriate remark and politely ask the editor to strike or refactor.

4. It is also unacceptable to case aspersions at editors acting in good faith. Editors new to the topic of transexuality may harbor misconceptions. These editors should be dealt with kindly, provided with information, and given time to absorb that information. Calling editors "transphobic" just because they lack knowledge of the topic is counter-productive and may serve to create a battleground atmosphere.

5. Wikipedia works by building consensus. If there is a disagreement about whether a policy is applicable, such as WP:BLP, editors need to remain civil and be patient while a discussion determines how policy should be applied. Actions, even correct actions, that circumvent the formation of consensus are disruptive to the project and must be avoided.

Remedies

6. Editors who behaved poorly during the Chelsea Manning page move discussions are cautioned to do better in the future.

7. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized. Any editor breaching the above standards on any page related to Chelsea Manning will first be warned and counseled how to do better. If that is not effective, blocks or bans as appropriate may be applied.

I don't think it's necessary to sanction individual editors at this time. The appropriate sanctions would have been rather short, and by the time they are applied, they'll be very stale offenses. If editors are truly problematic, they will prove it soon enough (per WP:ROPE). Jehochman ^Talk 16:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

A different concept: Rename the BLP to "Private Manning" with both names as redirects, and use the same requirement for new edits as is now found for "Mass killings under Communist regimes" - that is, require a defined consensus before any further edit. This would defuse matters a great deal, with everyone "gaining" and without trying to ennoble or disparage any group of editors. The practical consideration of what is best for the encyclopedia project ought to weigh heavily here. Psychologically weighing "attitudes" is ill-suited for the committee. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment

You say (Infoboxes case) "With the copyedit, this is now a factual finding. It is not necessarily a fully adverse finding." - I would still like to know where you or others "find" that I added an infobox knowing (!) that it would be controversial. "should have known" is fine, but how? Having added 7 welcomed infoboxes to Schubert's masses, how should I have known that one to a Mozart mass would cause an edit war? - Anyway, I left the two controversial projects and should cause them no more "damage". Please see also, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's no way for us to distinguish what a person "knew" from what she "should have known," so I wouldn't object to a copyedit of that finding.

Well, to say I did it although I knew makes a difference. It didn't bother me as long as was regarded as absurd. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, no one (to my knowledge) has asked that you leave any wikiproject. You have plenty of valuable knowledge that can still be used even while stepping back from the infobox "wars." Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

No one has asked but I was told that I damage productivity and collegial atmosphere. I have "impervious to pain" on my talk page, but "up to a certain point" (I took "futile and ugly", "idiot box", "(mental) health", no problem.). I will add articles, sure, but not as a project member. I miss Ched. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I miss any sincere, good-faith editor who departs from us, though I respect everyone's right to decide how to spend his or her free time. I hope there won't be many more departures soon, certainly not as a result of this issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, no one told you that you damaged the atmosphere at WikiProject Opera. Please re-read what I wrote here and here. I said that the continuous rehashing of infobox discussions on the project's talk page has been damaging to the project's formerly collegial atmosphere (and productivity) and I appealed to both sides for a moratorium on WikiProject level discussions about this issue for a few months. Voceditenore (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You are right, you told both sides, but that is me alone on one side, - much more comfortable for the other when I don't disturb with the idea that operas might look more like other Wikipedia articles. - Also I can't help reacting to the departure of Ched emotionally, not logically. He was the one who helped me in my last difficult time here (2011), he was the first ever to send me an email. I believe that he wanted to bring peace to the "infobox war" and had to see that we are far from it. I made "peace" the first word on my user page today, in his honour. - I am here to stay, just not in the projects. (Careful observers will have seen that I only commented my name out, leaving room for a less charged time. I will miss act 26 and perhaps come back for 27.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion is that Gerda take a few days or a couple of weeks away from the wikiproject and then reevaluate. The passage of time does not always heal all wounds, but it sometimes helps us realize that things aren't as dire as they seem. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Not to repeat too much: following your recommendation to have an infobox on the talk in contentious cases earned me the "battleground" attribute. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The hymn mentioned on the decision talk is also for you, - thank you for support in kafkaesque times. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC - Edit-warring

I've opened an RfC regarding a discussion that you were involved in.[1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, but I don't think I have anything to add there at this time. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

"broader attitude"

Um ... does AGK know he is himself being "dismissive" of me for being literate enough to use a term popularized by Teddy Roosevelt and implying that while it might not actually be a problem it is "reflective of (my) broader attitude"? Using literary references is now contrary to ArbCom rules? Wikipedia policies? What precisely is the reference to "broader attitude" intended to mean? Am I now far too old (67) to understand what the proper "attitude" is here with only 30K+ edits on several thousand articles and a couple of "good articles" to my name? I had thought the very first bit of boilerplate refers to building an encyclopedia. I think you are the only member with sufficient stature to point out the procedural and factual oddness of the proposed sanctions. In fact, you might note KC's opinion thereon as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC) BTW, one editor seems to deny trying to insert "racist" as a general attribute of the Tea Party movement -- since I am not allowed to post evidence, I have used my talk page to store the information of just a few edits by that editor. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Would you be cool with me dismissing your posts as "a bunch of damn bullshit"? (After all, it's simply an erudite reference to Harry Truman's famous take on General MacArthur's retirement speech). My point is that a rude or dismissive phrase is no less dismissive for having previously been uttered by a President. Obviously, the problem is not with literary or historical references per se, but with the dismissal of other editors' viewpoints. Frankly, while I think the sanction against you is out of proportion, your repeated rhetorical tactic of feigned incomprehension is probably the sort of "broader attitude" that got under AGK's skin (and that of the other Arbs who voted to sanction you). MastCell ^Talk 00:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

If you equate Teddy Roosevelt's "bosh and twaddle" with the Truman quote, I rather suggest the problem is, indeed, with your attitude and not with mine. ArbCom cases are supposed to be founded on evidence, and not on personal dislike, and if, indeed, the decision is based on personal animus, then those arbs are derelict in their duty. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Newyorkbrad. This is a manual ping to alert you to a specific request for response from you here. But the more important reason I'm posting this note to you is Collect's comment about me, just above. I'm requesting your help to put an end to this attempted character assassination. Collect has been spreading this disparagement of me in several venues, including:

• At an RfC/U: He seeks to make sure that people know how evil the Tea Party movement is, that it is racist, bigoted, homophobic etc. Collect (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
• At the current ArbCom case: everyone can note your repeated desires to label the Tea Part as generally "racist". Collect (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
• On his own Talk page: an editor who asserts that he has not tried to insert "racist" as a Tea Party attribute. Collect (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
• On this page above: one editor seems to deny trying to insert "racist" as a general attribute of the Tea Party movement Collect (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I would like it to stop. I know of the tactic (especially in politics) of spreading a lie so often and so widely that people will begin to believe it, but that should not be practiced on Wikipedia — regardless of Collect's reasoning. I've informed Collect that his characterizations of me, my actions and my motivations are incorrect, and I've asked him to stop - yet he persists. I'm quite certain I know myself better than Collect does, but that isn't good enough for him. So he is also, in effect, calling me a liar.

Here is the reality: I've participated in discussions and editing with other editors at Tea Party-related articles, and that has included working with sources and subject matter related to racism. I've learned about the topic as information became available, along with everyone else. I have no specific desire to characterize the subject matter in any way other than what reliable sources dictate, and to my knowledge thus far, that doesn't include calling the movement "evil, racist, homophobic, etc.," - so claims that I do are absolute nonsense. Now Collect has added a new tactic to his campaign, the citing of carefully cherry-picked snippets of past "evidence" that supposedly advance the narrative he has constructed. I suppose the expectation is that most casual readers will see that Collect has produced "evidence" and will look no further to verify it or check context — it's just human nature. Please don't be just another casual reader, Brad.

Look carefully at Collect's 5 items of evidence of me "calling the Tea Party racist". The first is only my response to another editor's question regarding a news source's description of a sign, and I said nothing about the Tea Party being racist. The second isn't even me - it's a quote from some IP to which Collect misleadingly signed my name. The third omits the first few sentences (and the editor's comment to which I was responding) that make it clear I said nothing about the Tea Party, and was only discussing what news sources said about events in Washington, D.C. The fourth conveniently omits the list of sourced statements by protesters and reported events, and only displays my observation of the contradiction between what those D.C. protesters were reportedly saying and what they were reportedly doing (this was the day after the protests as the news reports were flooding in and we were trying to make sense of them). The fifth (at the same link as the fourth) is a comment about the discussion section header, not the Tea Party. Duh.

@Collect - from one old fart to another old fart man, quit being an arse. I'm not sure how I managed to make it on to your hit list, but I'd like you to take me off it now, please. Wikipedia editing is just a hobby for me, and I'd like it to remain enjoyable. Between the RfC, the AN/I and the ArbCom, this hobby has been mostly dismal for much of 2013. I'd rather not spend more of it dealing with this kind of garbage. If you see any opportunity for bridge rebuilding here, please let me know. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I can also furnish evidence about your other comments, but you prove my point admirably in your screed above. Thank you very much! I would point out that I have never called you a four letter word etc. and suggest that such is nicely pointed out by your own post. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I rather expected this, but I had hoped for better from Collect. First, he created a false narrative about me and began spreading it. When I objected, rather than do the correct thing and cease, he chose instead to cite on his personal Talk page carefully cherry-picked snippets of past "evidence" that supposedly advanced the narrative he has constructed. When I refuted his 5 examples in my comment above, showing that not a single one has me calling the Tea Party racist as he claimed, and again requested that he cease, Collect has chosen instead to double-down with more out-of-context, misrepresented partial quotes. And again, not a single one of the latest five has me calling the Tea Party racist as he claimed. In fact, I see that Collect has "emended" one of his previous false attributions (translation: quietly replaced words of a totally different editor with words of mine). It now quotes me as rebuking an editor who claimed the TPers are racist: "It is not accurate to flatly state, 'the Tea Partiers are racist'". I'm not going to parse each example again to show where Collect takes Talk page snippets out of context or misrepresents article edits in an effort to support his false narrative; I'll just advise Brad to read the actual discussion threads from which they are cherry-picked, and review any article edits in light of preceeding edits to which they likely respond.

@Collect: Will you please halt your crusade? You usually take a conservative approach (which I admire) in upholding our BLP policies about disparagement of living people; it is regretable that you do not have the same regard for the living people who edit Wikipedia. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Would it be possible for the two of you to stay away from each other for awhile? Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Gladly - I respond exceedingly briefly to his personal attacks, and avoid making any myself. You will note the editor interaction tool is quite useful in determining who is following whom. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Ave atque vale

Per ArbCom barring any appellate acts. Collect (talk) 12:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe you should feel driven to stop editing by your disagreement with the Committee decision and sanction, though of course I respect your right to do so. If we are losing you, let me say that while we haven't seen eye-to-eye on every issue, I will miss your attentiveness to BLP issues. In which regard, you might be interested in my comment in response to a thread you started, in the Neutral section of The Interior's RfA. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you know exactly what "broadly construed" means? AFAICT, any admin can rule just about any remotely political page as "broadly related" to the TPM, which the colloquy on the cast talk page makes abundantly clear. I do not desire to get involved in any such games, and thus I am going to be quite absent -- except some arbs up for re-election who are seemingly proud that they did not even pay any attention to evidence nor workshop may be in for an interesting time of it. I note you did not see the FoF to be valid -- but enough arbs did -- and apparently do not give any care that they are violating a major precept -- that evidence must be examined, rather than making evidence fit the verdict. Cheers -- Ave atque vale. And For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. (sticking to English for any arbs reading who are 'offended' by foreign terms) Collect (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Appealed TPm decsion at Jimbo's page

NYB, since I forwarded you the email I sent to the Committee mailing list at your suggestion--but which was refused, apparently--I would appreciate it if you could supply that to Mr. Wales and the associated brief exchange of emails (including the exchange with AGK that I forwarded to you). Thank you.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it will be better if you forward them yourself, if you think them relevant. Insofar as they are addressed to me, you have my permission to do so in this instance. You should be aware, though, that to the best of my knowledge, Jimbo Wales has nver overturned and only once modified an Arbitration Committee decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Newyorkbrad/Archive/2013. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

JohnCD (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Received and responded. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Did you know/Good Article RfC

Hi NYBrad, I was just sitting down with some coffee and some uppers to close this thing when I saw your note at the bottom. So I'll go do business elsewhere and I'll check back in later to see if you got it right. :) Enjoy, Drmies (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I expect to get to it tonight. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Please take this as a token of my thanks for agreeing to, and closing, Wikipedia:Did you know/Good Article RfC. Turning out to be one of the larger RfCs I have seen, much larger than I anticipated, it was hard enough keeping up with it at the start so I appreciate the scale of the task. Gilderien Chat|What I've done 23:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

If you have a DYK or GA that you need reviewing, you are welcome to leave me a note.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for the kind words. This was actually an easier RfC to close than I anticipated when you originally asked me to do it; the community expressed its will on this issue fairly clearly. As for a DYK or GA of my own, I'll bear your kind offer in mind. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism/copyright violations

Hey Brad,

I appreciate your taking on the "big close" of the recent DYK/GA RfC, but I did have one question about it. You state that there's a consensus that "GA reviews should include at least a basic check for plagiarism and close paraphrasing", but that part of the RfC seems to me to have discussed "copyvio/close paraphrasing". I realize copyvio and plagiarism often overlap, but they're not quite synonymous--for example, material could be plagiarized from a public domain source without being a copyright violation, while properly attributed material could still violate a copyright.

This is causing a bit of confusion as we try to implement this at WT:GA?. Should we include WP:PLAGIARISM on the basis of this close? Or just WP:COPYVIO and WP:PARAPHRASE, the policies cited in the RfC?

My apologies if I'm being overly fussy, and thanks again for closing this massive topic. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The distinction you draw is sound in principle, but it seems to me that the same techniques that would hopefully pick up where an article copies from a copyrighted source, would equally pick up copying from a non-copyrighted source. (A check might still miss either one, particularly for sources that aren't online, but missing it wouldn't be because of whether the source is copyrighted.) Hence, it seems to me that it makes sense for the check to look for both, although of course there are more options to deal with a situation where we pick up copying from a PD rather than a copyrighted work (for example, in some circumstances, adding clear attribution rather than deleting or rewriting the material).

However, in terms of the closure, I would say that the outcome is that the GA reviewers should make some reasonable attempt to ensure that an article being considered for GA does not include problematic non-original content. It is understood of course that no method of checking for this is perfect or will pick up all instances. How these checks should work and what exactly should be checked for, should be part of the discussion that started yesterday; I don't claim any special expertise in this area.

Hope this helps. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

With your permission, then, I'll pass along word that we can disregard your reference to plagiarism in your close. I understand what you're saying that a check for one is often a good opportunity to check for the other, but it still muddies the waters a bit to substitute WP:PLAGIARISM for WP:COPYVIO in our criteria; you can see the GA? talk page for an argument already beginning about this.

Thanks again for taking this on, and sorry again to be the nitpicker. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Gerard

In the Manning case I presented evidence regarding Gerard's history as an administrator since his actions as an administrator in this case are a concern. However, there seems to be a bit of confusion regarding this incident. There were claims made that he was stripped of the checkuser and oversight tools and the ArbCom notice makes it sound that way, but it was also claimed that he resigned those tools. Since you were an Arb at the time could you clarify this for me?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not think it will be necessary to characterize that situation for purposes of the evidence in this case. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, some are asking me to remove it because of this lack of clarity. I think prior administrative misconduct is relevant and it seems best for any evidence of such to be presented accurately.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Oh, that is one of the project's many dark and tangly corners. Try Wikisupremes eject UK Wikispokesman from inner circle for starters. Tarc (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Indeed it is a very dark and tangly corner and was far from the Arbcom's finest moment - don't you agree Brad? In a nutshell: The Arbcom started off more or less in the right, but then made naive and incautious pronouncements; this led them to be wrong footed when vague, but possibly justifiable legal threats were hinted at from on High. These caused hurried attempts to save pride all round and hush things up. Consequently, the situation became even more confused and ordinary common, garden editors started to ask quite pertinent questions. They were arrogantly told to mind their own business and the matter was killed. End of story.  Giano  07:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Twin Books v. Walt Disney

Could you or maybe one of your talk-page-watchers write a Wikipedia article on this controversial but nonetheless important US copyright case law? The ink is still flowing about that case from what I can see [2] [3] m etc. Thanks. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you free next Thursday? Join us at the Wikimedia DC WikiSalon!

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next WikiSalon, which will be held from 7 to 9 PM on Thursday, September 26 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon is an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill ^[talk] 06:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

ThatCampPhilly Edit-a-thon Invitation

Please join the Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at THATCamp Philly, September 27, 2013, held at the Chemical Heritage Foundation. Bring your own content to work on, or get an early start on Ada Lovelace Day with our resources about women in science, chemistry and the history of science. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Note

I'll be travelling and mostly offline until Monday. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Today's trivia question for TPWs

Who contributed to both a song by Ke$ha and the United Nations Charter? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Shoot. Not me, I think--guess I need to get back to work. Drmies (talk) 05:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• Well, thanks a lot. That would be me, having spent a fruitless 20 minutes on Fuck Him He's a DJ. And then a bit more to find this one. So thanks a lot, on behalf of my family. Are you getting up at 7 to take my kids to school? Drmies (talk) 06:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Republishing/legality

Hi, sorry to bother you. I just changed Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks (diff) to try to reduce our potential liability for defamatory statements republished by third parties. I was thinking "it's a shame I can't pass this to Mike Godwin" and your name only popped into my head after I'd posted. You can see from this talk page section what I'm concerned about. I know you aren't counsel for WMF, but you do seem to know your stuff, so if you think our liability for republished articles might be significant, could you raise it with the WMF? I'm guessing that they could close this off easily by putting a few disclaimers in place that aren't subject to re-writing without proper consideration. - Pointillist (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that the change you made would not really affect anyone's liability, although I agree with your edit as a matter of style. In terms of reaching WMF counsel, please note that Mike Godwin left that position a couple of years ago and was succeeded by Geoff Brigham. You can reach Geoff on-wiki at User talk:Geoffbrigham, although I can't speak for how often he has an opportunity to check the page. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've posted to his talk page. I don't know if it is really a problem. In my (British, libel-plaintiff-friendly) jurisdiction it could certainly be argued that a republisher who deliberately copies content from Wikipedia isn't protected by our watered-down equivalent of the USA's §230. I'd certainly give it a punt if I got defamed that way—there's a good chance the defendants would prefer to settle out of court! - Pointillist (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

RM close description

I believe that Kirill's finding of fact 7 subtly misrepresents the close. The admins did analyse the arguments during the RFC that BLP required a move of the article, and rejected them as insufficient. That's a normal part of WP:CONSENSUS. Describing it as a "super-vote" is dismissive and cheapens the work that went into evaluating the discussion.

I've proposed an alternate finding of fact 7 at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute/Proposed_decision#Analysis_of_change_of_article_title_by_closing_administrators . Multiple arbitrators have been pinged, but none have responded.

If you need Boz, BD2412 and I to explicitly insert the sentence "After carefully evaluating the comments about BLP in the discussion, we have concluded ..." into point 3, we certainly can, but that's a part of closing an RFC. I find it insulting that anyone thinks that we skipped it.—Kww(talk) 02:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll review this tomorrow. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

please note points made on Workshop Talk page

I have posted salient comments, I trust, on the Workshop talk page about Pvt. Manning, and would suggest you note what I consider to be an important purpose of titles, that is - to allow readers an ability to readily find additional sources on a topic. To that end, I suggest the inclusion of "title" under WP:BLP may quite well be an error which will haunt ArbCom in the future. Cheers. - and please do read my post there. Collect (talk) 11:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I've followed the Workshop as best I can, but it's very long at this point, and a number of the arbitrators are probably looking only at the Proposed decision page and its talkpage at this stage. To be sure I and others have seen the post you are referencing, it would be helpful if you could provide a diff or more specific link, and/or cross-post to the PD talkpage.

Based on what I've seen thus far, I see no reason to change my view that BLP applies to article titles along with all other portions of the encyclopedia. That does not mean that in any given case, one view of the proper article title will prevail over another (BLP problems often involve balancing one value versus another); it just means that the policy applies and needs to be taken into account. At the most basic level, for example, in the hopefully unlikely event that an article title contained unsourced or unverifiable negative information about a living person, it would need to be changed right away. I expect that you don't disagree with that.

With regard to your concern that applying BLP to article titles might make it hard for readers to find additional sources—I'm sorry, but I don't see what the concern is based on, and would welcome your clarifying. In the context of this case, for example, I believe that just about everyone who believes the article title should be Bradley Manning would expect there to be a redirect from Chelsea Manning, and vice versa. Thus, if an editor types "Chelsea Manning" into the search box on-wiki, right now while the article is at Bradley Manning, he or she will be brought straight to the Bradley Manning page, perhaps without even noticing that the title is different from what he or she typed in. Similarly, I was told years ago that a redirect attains the same search-engine ranking ("Google juice") as the target article. So I infer that unless that has changed, or unless there is something I am missing, the availability of additional sources for readers would be unaffected no matter what article title (within reason) is chosen. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

At least one editor proposed excising the name "Bradley" entirely as being "harmful" per se to the subject. If such an excision were made, or the article were worded in a manner which obscures the name under which the person became notable, we shall have ill-served the reader. Making the reader's task simpler is a proper goal and function of an encyclopedia. Obscuring information in the guise of "not harming the subject" is contrary to that precise and obvious goal.

I note that Google has recently undertaken a major change in their ranking algorithms, and that what you were told years ago might not have been true then, and certainly may well have changed now.

I suggest it is also proper to note that some of the strongest voices for the title being "Chelsea" a few short months ago were strongly calling for the article to be "Breanna" - and we now know that such a change would have been highly embarrassing to the subject considering the newer name appearing so recently after the article would have been given a totally different name. At an appropriate discussion, I suggested using "Private Manning" as a completely neutral title, but that simple suggestion was opposed by Chelsea supporters.

I also suggest that my other points are valid and proper, and that it is not my task to post them in multiple places, but it is the proper task of arbitration committee members to assiduously follow what has been written on the pages designated by them for that express purpose. Elsewise, those pages are useless and an exercise in (explicit wording avoided). Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

If you don't think I've done the best to keep up with all of the evidence and workshop discussion, you're entitled to your opinion. Someone pointed out yesterday on Wikipediocracy that the case pages now exceed 1,000,000 characters. Let's drop that aspect of the matter. I'm giving thought to the points you've made here. I'm extremely interested in any update that any tech-minded TPW can provide on the point about search results for redirects. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You suggested reposting the comments - I suggest that you clearly are a careful reader of all that is posted, and trust that the other arbitrators also follow each post. (It took me a while to wade through the million character page, to be sure) BTW, the NYT posted commentary about the name change where they make a specific exception for Unless a former name is newsworthy or pertinent[4] which I think may well be the case at hand.

Thus making it a content question: Is the name "Bradley Manning" newsworthy or pertinent to the article in question? and not a case of editor behavior or misconduct at all. Collect (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding ArbCom imposed article probation

I've made a few comments on the Talk:Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University about whether there might be any way the probation the article was placed under a few years ago might in some way be used to benefit the article. Another editor asked Fred Bauder about this, but Fred indicated he might not have the patience for this. I don't know that you would have any more patience regarding this topic than Fred, of course, but I think some indication on the article talk page about any ways the existing probation might be used to benefit the article in development or stability would be welcome. And, yeah, sorry for dumping this on you, but you do seem, in general, probably the best person around here to answer questions like this. Thanks in advance for any input you might have. John Carter (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look at this, but probably won't have time until the Manning Naming case is over. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)