Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:24, 5 July 2013

Archives

Index of archives

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

NYC Wiki-Picnic: Saturday June 22

	Great American Wiknic NYC at Prospect Park
	You are invited to the Great American Wiknic NYC in Brooklyn's green and lovely Prospect Park, on this Saturday June 22! We would love to see you there, so sign up and bring something fun for the potluck :) -- User:Pharos (talk)

Thanks and a platonic apology

Thanks for your courteous responses. So far, Burnett and Marshall's introductory essay as captured in part at Amazon, Foreign in a domestic sense (my copy is in the mail) does much to reassure and calm the bickering spirit among us. Thank you, Newyorkbrad. The anthology's essays are paired to examine several facets of each element studied.

By my reading, much maligned of late, -- according to Burnett, there IS scholarship (inconclusive) supporting Bkonrad -- just nothing for his dismissive personal attacks; I wonder why he does not appeal to the scholarship as you did? p.19: reflects my understanding from my previously cited sources -- which Burnett says is inconclusive: "Supporters of the compact theory insist that the adoption of the Constitution of Puerto Rico was itself a sovereign act of the people of Puerto Rico and, as such, that it effected a transfer of sovereignty from Congress which Congress may not rescind." And later,

"This debate continues unabated." -- among scholars -- So the issues surrounding Burnett's judicially "unincorporated" colonialism requires a nuanced narrative to write in both sourced views, rather than summarily reverting entries without sourcing --- if we were to take Foreign in a domestic sense as our guide for the WP article, as Newyorkbrad suggested, or did you? When I point out an editor is using snippets without sources, the answer is that my using direct quotes and linked sources is 'snippets'. You may understand that I am not sure what you wrote recommending 'Foreign in a domestic sense' to me.

As you may have determined, I am from the wrong side of the "digital divide" -- I have not figured out how to wiki-fence to effect, -- frustrated by endless non-sequiturs -- Subject: extent of US federal republic: DC in US jurisdiction since 1790s, directly governed by Congress, has not a population in the federal republic until it has an elected self-government and a delegate in congress, 1972 -- Nonsequitur: I said DC was not in the US until 1972 ? -- and generally, misstating of my views as strawmen -- but I cannot tell you how grateful I am to have sources to explore rather than personal attack -- the research is 60% of the joy at Misplaced Pages as a hobby. I fear my last at "unincorporated US territories" in trying to meet Bkonrad-0uw did not measure up to your standard. I may be artless but I am not blind to the difference between the two of you on the page. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Candidly, I think it might be best if you focused on another topic area for a couple of weeks, as some of the discussion on that talkpage is getting a little too heated for my taste. I'm glad to answer any more questions you might have about the sources. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

SCotUS naming standards

Hey Brad, I responded to your note on my talk page. --Bertrc (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Responded on your page. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

How would a gun designed by a lawyer work?

Answer. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

No comment. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Oops, when I reverted your edit about the sitting schedule last month, I completely failed to notice your edit was to a quotation in a {{cite web}}, so my edit was based on sense and not form. This morning I looked at it again and realized you changed a quotation, and on that basis reverted it. Just wanted to apologize for not noticing that last month and therefore basically making the same edit twice for different reasons. jhawkinson (talk) 11:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, you are right that we can't edit a quotation, but what I recommend is that we rephrase and drop the quotation. What's stated on the court website technically isn't correct; for at least the past 15 years, the practice has been as I've described it (four judges go to Puerto Rico and sit in panels for four days, while other judges sit the same week in Boston). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstood my concern with your edit last month. The judges who hear the cases in Boston are not a single "panel" proper, bceause multiple different 3-judge panels hear cases in Boston during the same week. The same is true in Puerto Rico. E.g. in March, Lynch, Torruella, and Selya sat on March 4 and Lynch, Torruella, and Lipez sat on March 5. Those are two panels. So it would not be correct to say "one panel" sat in PR. If you want to rephrase and drop the quotation, I have no particular objection, other than to make sure what is said is correct. I reverted your first June 23 edit because it was incorrect (on the definition of a panel), and your second June 23 edit because I (belatedly) realized you edited a quotation. I have no opinion on the spirit of your edits, my objections were to technical accuracy and form. Thanks. jhawkinson (talk) 01:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Away

I'll be mostly offline for the next few days given the US holiday. Regards to all, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Note on Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Proposed decision

S-e-r-i-o-u-s-l-y. Enjoy the 4th. Bishonen | talk 21:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC).

Thanks. I've been with family for the holiday but I'll look at your concern in the morning. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

WMF employee joking about burning a wikipedia editor alive

I can't see how this is acceptable. http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=51423#p51423

#wikipedia-en-admins on 26 June wrote:

01:12 < TParis> Ironholds: You silly guy

01:12 < TParis> You gotta revdel the edit in the middle too: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Gun_politics_in_New_Zealand&oldid=561596433

01:12 < TParis> *shakes head* Can't ever give you OS tools...

01:15 < Ironholds> TParis: oh, sod off. Kiefer needs his rubdown.

01:15 < TParis> Well, you grab the oil, I'll meet you there.

01:17 < Ironholds> only if I'm allowed to bring a lighter.

I'm pretty sure making lethal threats, even jokingly, on wikipedia is grounds for immediate blocking. I'm also pretty sure that doing this in an wikipedia admin IRC channel is grounds for immediate de-adminning. I'm fairly certain that the WMF doesn't condone this type of harassing behavior by its employees.

Your thoughts? TalkingToBrad (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk page stalker's thoughts: why don't you use your main account to Talk To Brad? Bishonen | talk 22:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC).

Gosh, Bish. Anyone would have thought you'd be all for some clamping down on IRC. Or is it only when Drama Queen Award Recipient Tony calls you and your friends names that you care? One wouldn't want to think that it was a matter of who was "of the body" now, would one.101.118.166.149 (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC) (oh, and PS, I have no account. An account just gives an easy target. After all, I'm certainly "not of the body".)

Doing so would be particularly ironic if their main account were one of those accounts with a "This user reads Wikipediocracy" userbox with a reference to a "lethal threat, even jokingly" in it, nay? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I've removed one edit from the history of this page, it's available to Brad to view and decide whether he wishes to restore it. Nick (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I have been with family for the holiday and will look at all of this in the morning. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad response

This is all quite unpleasant, and quite remote from the reasons I participate on Misplaced Pages. None of this is really in my bailiwick in any of my capacities on the project, but a few points nonetheless need to be addressed, and I suppose I'm as good a person to do so as anyone.

First, IRC logs are not supposed to be posted on-wiki. At this point, the excerpt above has been publicized enough that it wouldn't serve much purpose to remove or suppress it, so I will let it stand, without meaning to set a precedent. I have redacted the usernames, although at this stage that is almost as a matter of form.

The "Misplaced Pages" IRC channels are not "part of Misplaced Pages" and, to the best of my knowledge, have no affiliation with the Wikimedia Foundation. The precise nature of the relationship that does exist between this project and IRC has always been, perhaps partly by design, not precisely defined.

The #wikipedia-en-admins channel has a particularly debatable status, because like all the other channels it is not "part of" the English Misplaced Pages, but its occupants are (largely if not entirely) limited to the administrators on this project and there are times that quasi-official matters may be discussed there. Soon after I joined the Arbitration Committee, Jimmy Wales asked ArbCom to clarify the status and governance of the channel, but for a number of reasons, this never happened.

However, issues relating toward this unusual, hybrid entity were discussed in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/IRC and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes. In the latter case, in December 2008, the Committee made findings of fact including the following:

The official relationship between the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel and the Misplaced Pages community is ambiguous. The Committee does not exercise any direct control over the channel; instead, it is controlled by an internal hierarchy of channel operators....'

Discussions held in the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel have historically been subject to substantial and unpredictable unauthorized disclosure to parties outside the channel. This limits the channel's usefulness for discussion of matters requiring privacy and discretion....

There have been numerous instances, both reported on-wiki and known to Arbitrators anecdotally, in which administrators or former administrators have made inappropriate comments in the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Although this channel is not part of Misplaced Pages proper, and at times the attention paid to particular individual comments can be significantly overblown, such comments can nonetheless reflect negatively on the administrators who make them, on administrators as a whole, and on the project. From time to time, the channel operators have led initiatives to improve the tone of discourse in the channel.

The remedies passed in the case included the following:

Administrators who utilize the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel (or other IRC channels in which Misplaced Pages-related matters are discussed) are reminded that ... even though the relationship between the "wikipedia" IRC channels and Misplaced Pages remains ambiguous, any incidents of personal attacks or crass behavior in #wikipedia-en-admins are unwelcome and reflect adversely on all users of the channel.

This observation strikes me as being as true in 2013 as it was in 2008. In referencing it, I don't mean to suggest that censorship is required in the channel, or that every word spoken (typed) in it needs to be phrased exactly as one might phrase it on Misplaced Pages. But the channel is close enough to this project that standards of decorum should be observed. That IRC logs do come to light sometimes, while contrary to Freenode and channel policies, also speaks in favor of phrasing one's remarks bearing in mind that one is speaking in at least a semi-public forum rather than a private conversation.

(I don't want to create the impression that I believe the excerpt quoted above is typical of discourse in the channel. Far from it. It's been several months since I was in #admins, but in my experience there, some of the discussion is ordinary conversation, some of it concerns routine wiki-maintenance or common wiki-interests, and relatively little of the discussion crosses any lines. In particular, my impression is that the practice of "block-shopping on IRC" is less prevalent than it was a few years ago. And for my money, the "Jabberwocky" snippet someone recently unearthed, while it should not have been posted on another website without permission, was very funny.)

To return the original post from "TalkingToBrad", I don't think the quoted comment was a "threat." It does not say that User2 is going to harm User3; it doesn't even say that User2 seriously wants to do physical harm to User3. The colloquy clearly suggests that User1 and especially User2 don't have much use for User3. It was not an especially clever, and it in fact was a crass and very unpleasant, way of expressing that sentiment. I don't blame User3 for being offended by it, but I take it an effort at humor that misfired. Calling it a "lethal threat" is an obvious overreaction, one that suggests to me that TalkingToBrad is looking to cause trouble for User2 or the like.

It is obvious that we could do very well without any more of these sorts of comments, in #Misplaced Pages-en-admins or anywhere else. It's not clear that there is anyone in particular with the ability to banish this sort of reference, even in jest, to harming other editors, and yet banished they must be.

Years ago, a Misplaced Pages Review regular (whose comments I often find insightful) suggested at the outset of my Arbship that someday I would turn into Lord Palpatine. More recently, someone suggested on this talkpage that I am dismissive of wiki-procedures and that I "have a tendency to act like some special crown prince." I don't think I've done that, but with Jimbo on break, this is as good a time as any for a power grab; and in my newfound capacity as Director of Decorum, I decree that all references to harming to other users be permanently discontinued in all Wikimedia-related discussions worldwide, including but not limited to any references to flaming oils and boxcutters. (Trout-slapping remains permissible.)

As for the edit that was removed from this page, I will say little. It was obviously unacceptable (and it was properly rev-deleted), but much of it was provoked by reading what was posted above, and if someone said even in jest that he daydreamt of setting fire to me, I would not reciprocate with "have a nice day." The same user has made other comments, including one on an external website this morning, that I frankly find much more troubling than the one posted and removed here. In any event, that user has stated that for unrelated reasons, he lacks confidence in my judgment. In that context I think it best to say no more about him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

IRC is very much part of Misplaced Pages, as this edit by Jimbo makes very clear . It's pernicious influence is one of the reasons that so many hate admins so much. I hope its logs showing atrocious admins behavior continue to be published here. It needs to be closed down.  Giano  21:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party case

Looks like you're very busy. I hope you had fun with your family on the 4th, and you were able to catch up with them. I certainly enjoyed the break with mine. At the evidence talk page for the Arbcom proceeding on Tea Party movement, I've placed a request for leave to file extended evidence. As a non-party, I'm only allowed 500 words and 50 diffs. I'm presenting evidence on three editors, and the evidence on each one of them may exceed that limit all by itself. User talk:Callanecc indicates that your clerk will be on holiday until the 9th and I know User:SilkTork is also traveling, so it's down to you. Sorry to bother you. Would like to get this evidence together, so that when everyone comes back, we can hit the ground running and get this resolved. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I actually just made a request to the clerks for you to be added as a party to the case, so for now, go ahead and submit evidence as if you were one. NW (Talk) 18:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)