Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:49, 12 June 2014

Archives

Index of archives

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

Adrianne Wadewitz Memorial edit-a-thons

Adrianne Wadewitz edit-a-thons in Southern New England

As you may have already heard, the Misplaced Pages community lost an invaluable member of the community last month. Adrianne Wadewitz was a feminist scholar of 18th-Century British literature, and a prolific editor of the site. As part of a worldwide series of tributes, New England Wikimedians, in conjunction with local institutions of higher learning, have created three edit-a-thons that will be occurring in May and June. The events are as follows: May 21st at Northeastern University's Snell Library, in the Digital Scholarship Commons on the second floor May 22nd at Brown University's Rockefeller Library, in the Digital Scholarship Lab June 25th at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (exact location TBA), where we will also be hosting a "how to conduct an edit-a-thon" session beforehand We hope that you will be able to join us, whether you are an experienced editor or are using Misplaced Pages for the first time. If you have any questions, please leave a message at Kevin Rutherford's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.

Hello Newyorkbrad

Greg Kohs and WikiConference USA

Dear Brad: Is this report accurate: WikiConference USA bans critic from open meeting? If it is accurate do you know if a response from the conference organizers is forthcoming? I won't spend time explaining exactly how upsetting this is and how very bad it looks on its face until the accuracy of the report is confirmed. It looks really bad, though, and I really hope there's a plausible explanation. Note that I'm not asking about the rejection of Kohs's presentation, but only about the allegation that he was barred from an event touted as "open to all participants, regardless of previous level of involvement with Misplaced Pages or the Wikimedia projects. We welcome the curious, the skeptical, and others wishing to engage in meaningful conversation about the Wikimedia movement in the United States, free culture and digital rights, advocacy and outreach, community building, and technology."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why you're bothering to ask the question. NYB will undoubtedly claim that confidentiality prevents him from giving you a proper answer. Eric Corbett 15:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Kohs is banned from the website...why would he even want to attend?--MONGO 15:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

MONGO, that's a remarkably idiotic comment. Who cares why Kohs wants to attend? If it's advertised as open to all and yet some people who register can be told they can't come for undisclosed reasons after they've already registered, the same thing could be done to anyone for any reason. That's not a dignified and ethical way to run a conference that evidently has sompe pretensions to academic respectability. If the conference announcement had said "open to all but banned users" I wouldn't even be asking the question. However, if the WMF wants the cachet that goes along with academic recognition, even if only vicariously, they ought to conduct themselves according to the minimal ethical standards of academia, even if only superficially. Eric, I'm bothering to ask because I want to know the answer. It seems only decent.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't even know what Wikimania is, but if it is some kind of Misplaced Pages related conference, and if it is supposed to be serious, perhaps the organizers felt that it would be ridiculous for a banned paid editor, particularly an abusive troll who has socked and disrupted as he has, to make a self-serving presentation on paid editing? Coretheapple (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Your original inquiry was remarkably idiotic...why would a banned editor wish to attend...as my edit summary indicated, my question was rhetorical. It sad that even after all these years he wouldnt have moved on....but sadder that some editors here seem Kohs or his arguments still have any validity. What's unique about this sort of thing? Even Conny Rice and others have been unvited or felt compelled to not give speeches or make presentations at events.--MONGO 16:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

If he wished to give a presentation on how to combat sockpuppeting, coming clean on his own activities, giving insight into why he does what he does, why he wastes people time deliberately - even bragging about it - then I can see the value of his participating in that Wikimania thing. But for him to take off his "abusive troll hat" and put on a "thoughtful Misplaced Pages critic hat" whenever it suits him is just a game, and no one else has to play it. Coretheapple (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Obviously whether he presents at the conference is up to the organizers of the conference. As I said specifically in my original question I'm not asking about his presentation being rejected. I have no opinion about that, it's very plausibly normal conference procedure. I'm asking about his registration being revoked and his being told that he could not attend. I have no idea about "Kohs or his arguments" regarding their validity. I don't care who Kohs is or what he thinks. It's very particularly not the issue. The conference was advertised as open to all. Kohs was evidently told at the last minute that he could not attend and evidently this was done out of process and without explanation. If this really happened, and I'm just asking NYB whether it did or not, it is dangerous for anyone who's interested in Misplaced Pages regardless of how wrong or idiotic Kohs's ideas may be. If the conference is not open, it should not be advertised as open. Please try to stick to the subject. Kohs has no right to present at such a conference whether his ideas are right or wrong. He probably has no legal right to be allowed to attend the conference either. He does, though, have an ethical right to attend given the description of the conference. But if the WMF wants to be taken seriously, and the description of this conference indicates that they want to be taken very seriously indeed, they should act like serious people. Serious people don't mind questions about whether allegations against them are true. Why is it so hard to understand that Kohs's ideas are completely beside the point here? Why is it so hard to understand the distinction between attending a conference and presenting at one?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I would rather Kohs didn't attend as I don't see any contribution from him as likely to be a positive one. However I care far more that Kohs and friends aren't given an easy headline of "Misplaced Pages bans its critics". Andy Dingley (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Who else are they banning? All I know is this one, a banned paid editor and sockmaster. Coretheapple (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Please go discuss this at Wikipediocracy or wherever you like, but not HERE on this website. This conversation is far removed from writing articles. Moreover, it is not polite to talk about a banned editor in a forum where they are not supposed to respond. Thank you. Jehochman 17:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Please note that this is not any one individual’s decision but a group decision, for which I am acting as messenger/scrivener. The decision is final and is not subject to reconsideration or appeal.

— NYB

Please do not badger NYB about this situation on this page. He can surely respond here if he wishes to do so. There is no need for a pile on before he has a chance to reply (if he wishes). Jehochman 18:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not piling on and I'm not badgering. I asked a simple question politely without any embedded assumptions and I asked it one time. Every other commenter has either, like you, told me to buzz off or else posted content-free snark. Also, (a) this has everything to do with writing the encyclopedia, (b) I'm not talking about a banned user, I'm talking about the organizers of the WikiConference, among whom is NYB, and (c) if NYB was chosen to convey the message surely it's appropriate to ask him if a response from those responsible for the decision are planning to respond to an allegation. Why don't you close every other discussion on this talk page that has to do with the WikiConference if you feel so strongly that it has nothing to do with writing articles?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Other stuff exists. Also, other conversations might not be baiting a banned user to respond here; this one clearly is. Jehochman 19:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

If you do have a comment to make about the accuracy of the communication ascribed to you in the place mentioned, please do feel free to respond. (@Jehochman. This is very much a Misplaced Pages affair since the NYC Wikiconference organizers sank several thousand dollars of WMF funds into their gathering. That the matter was first raised off-site is irrelevant.) Carrite (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I really don't want to encourage socking on this page, nor do we want to talk about banned users where they can't respond. Please go to the conference website and contact them with any concerns. Note that this is the Misplaced Pages website, not the Wikimedia Foundation website. Jehochman 18:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous. There are sections above that are wholly devoted to the WikiConference and Brad's role in it. This is precisely the place to ask.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

And I am quite stunned that my question can be removed like this. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

NYB's response

It is understandable that this question would be raised here, but I'm afraid I can't add anything to the e-mail that has already been published. I'd appreciate if criticizing Mr. Kohs, or for that matter praising him or otherwise commenting about him, does not become a topic here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to reply.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not interested in commenting on mr Kohs behaviour (I fully agree that we should not discuss him here, as he cannot reply here). What I am interested in discussing is your behaviour, specifically if it is appropriate to A: ban a person without giving a reason, B: ban them from a conference less than 24 hours before it starts? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Answering your questions would require discussing what the person did to merit being banned. Some of that info may be non-public information, and furthermore, that raises the problem that it is impolite to talk about a person in a venue where they aren't able to respond. Jehochman 19:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

That's mere speculation on your part. But what not answering the question does is to cast doubt on the probity of those organising the conference, including NYB, whom it was obvious right from the start would try to hide behind his usual pretend shield of confidentiality. And to repeat what others have said, this is isn't about what Kohs may or may not have done it's about what NYB did. Eric Corbett 12:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Jehochman, will you be going around from now on and suppressing every discussion about every banned editor? --NeilN 19:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Or worse: suppress the discussion about our treatment of banned editors? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Other stuff exists. When I see something wrong, I will speak up. Just because other stuff goes unnoticed doesn't make this situation right. You both are being rude to NYB, and you are baiting Mr Kohs to violate his ban. Please stop. Jehochman 20:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

As Mr. Kohs indicates, he violates his ban with impunity on a weekly or daily basis. I'm not "baiting" him to do anything he doesn't already do other than to drop the stick for a month, to edit anonymously on non-commercial matter in good faith, and to report his results. That would be an improvement, would it not? As for my being rude to Brad, that I have already done off-wiki; I'm certainly not intending to do it here. Quite the opposite. If he was misrepresented or misquoted and I therefore owe him an apology, all he needs to do is to say the word. I've already said my piece elsewhere and have no need to do it again. Carrite (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a sad state of affairs. I hope Brad will give an explanation of his role in this, and some insight into the decision. As a volunteer, I would not deliver a message if I thought its contents were unethical or damaging in some way, and I would hope all Wikipedians would say the same. Since Brad did deliver the message, that can very reasonably be understood to mean that he found the contents to be appropriate, and either way I hope he will explain. Everyking (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Please stop badgering NYB. He was asked a question. He answered and said specifically that he had nothing more to say. It is rude to badger somebody on their own talk page where they can't ignore you. Jehochman 02:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

He seems to be doing a pretty good job of ignoring what is after all a very simple question so far. Eric Corbett 12:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Twice, maybe three times, Brad has been a strong advocate on your behalf...when a number of arbs were ready to ban you, he opposed that...we can always look to Brad for fairness and it's disheartening to see that you would be so ungrateful and so unable to assume good faith.--MONGO 14:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You've conveniently forgotten that he's also voted to ban me, and supported shutting me up on the topic of RfA reform, so I really fail to see what I have to be grateful for. But why are you attempting to divert attention on to me and away frem NYB? Eric Corbett 14:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

No matter the rest, Brad, if there were any doubt left that you've reached elder statesman status, the fact that you now have a crowd of people feuding over the propriety of questions asked on your talk page (rather than the substance) before you even get a chance to respond certainly settles that question. MLauba 14:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Where have you got the idea from that he's had no chance to respond? Eric Corbett 15:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The four hours of back and forth and closing and hiding and restoring between the time of the initial question and NYB's first edit of the day. MLauba 15:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

So you've just made it up then, fair enough. Eric Corbett 15:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

He did respond above....seems clear to me that he is not interested, so it was hatted off...time to move on.--MONGO 15:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• NYB has answered -- see his statement in bold above. Please stop badgering him. See asked and answered. Jehochman 15:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• NYB did not post his statement in bold . Regardless of who is going or not going somewhere off-wiki, on wiki basic courtesy is we don't edit other user's comments, unless they are in violation of some Wiki policy -- in which cause they are removed, not altered. @NYB, if you don't wish to be a topic here, why haven't you simply removed (or archived) the comments per standard user talk page practice? NE Ent 11:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I emphasized the statement so that people could find it amongst all the whinging and drama-mongering on this thread, which you are now regrettably adding to. Please stop. NYB is very smart to ignore this thread. A variety of malcontents are here trying to stir up trouble. He shouldn't provide them oxygen. Jehochman 15:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Hi NYB. You'll notice that I neither criticize nor praise Greg Kohs when I post this very relevant link to a petition that I started. As of today, 22 signees refuse to attend any conference that Greg Kohs is not allowed to attend for any reason. This petition doesn't praise, criticize, or endorse Mr. Kohs' actions. I would be honored if you signed it: petition to promote truly open conferences. ,Wil (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
• There's another matter that your input would really help to resolve. I added a mention of the issue of banning Greg Koh's to the List of Misplaced Pages controversies, because I believed it met the criteria to be called a "controversy". My edit was subsequently reverted with a comment that "the reasons were specified". As far as I know the only explanation given for his banning was in your organization's communication to him: "The organizers of Wikiconference USA 2014 have determined that based on a number of considerations, you are not invited to attend the conference." Would you consider those reasons "specified"? Also, a lack of sources was indicated in the comment. This issue has been covered in at least two sources, and I believe it might be incentivizing those who believe this edit should stand to find other sources to cover the issue. There is now an unproductive edit war underway on that page. Your opinion could settle the matter. I would be very grateful if you would help bring this edit war to an end. So, given this easily verifiable information, do you agree that this matter could be called a "controversy" at this point? Best. ,Wil (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

New England Wikimedians summer events!

The Volokh Conspiracy

Good morning, @Newyorkbrad:. I am a former admin who had to give up my love when my husband, a cryptologist for the government, received orders to relocate our family to Norway for four years. Even now, though back in the states, I'm careful what I post online. As such, please delete this post when youve read it. (Not even this account is connected to our home or linked to my family.) I remember you were a clerk for the Arbcom. It is very important you respond at your earliest convenience. I think the matter will be of interest to you also. I must request confidentiality offsite, and you should expect a series of questions in order that i verify your identity. Once past those few hurdles, I'll ID myself, of couse. Once i've seen your email (or, alternatively, your email address), I'll let you know via reply how to proceed to verification. I realize this sounds cryptic (when in Rome), and I realize this is too ambiguous to be easily believed. I hope you will be willing. Having met you, I know you are not someone who would judge a book by its cover or permit relationships to interfere with your judgment. At least I am hoping not. If you are willing to post your email address on my talk page I promise to delete it once I have read it. You'll need to purge the rev hist as you wish and as i will request you to do with this post. Its only that I need to be certain posting my email address will be absolutely necessary for you to contact me; if you cannot, I will. I have disallowed user notifications but will try to check back as often as I am able. Thank you...- IBM. ElenOfTroy (talk) 10:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You can email this user by clicking the link under "tools"at left. You will also be required to code in as usual...--MONGO 11:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I do realize that; however, for reasons stated above, I declined. ElenOfTroy (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Please report to your assigned debriefing center. We will have a black helicopter waiting for you.--MONGO 14:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Now, Mongo,,, you have to stop. It's hard enough for me as it is without having someone like you putting a big smile on my face. ElenOfTroy (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

We have red-headed bellied and piliateds in our back yard. Actually we have all birds indigenous to our area. We spend about $300 a month on feed for our 23 or so feeders. This is the first year since before we left that bluebirds have nested. We're very excited. ElenOfTroy (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC) ElenOfTroy (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

NYB's email address is not a secret: Misplaced Pages:ARB#Individual arbitrators. WJBscribe (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@WJBscribe:@MONGO:. Thank you both. ElenOfTroy (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand this thread in the least, but WJBscribe is correct about my e-mail address. Please bear in mind, however, that it's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The ambiguity of the Allingham reference (from The Fashion in Shrouds) is curiously intuitive, but only in such an oblique and circuitous way as to lead one to believe it was more a guess than anything else. Still, the woodpecker paragraph was not intended to be esoteric, much less, a non sequitur. I just assumed the regulars of this page knew one other. Assuredly, as a foreigner, I do not. I also do not ever intend to offend, so.to clarify MONGO’s comment as sarcastic, I perused his user and talk pages. (The redhead is on the former.)

I’ll try to make this paragraph pertinent to the section title, provided it is not misconstrued as related in any way to the real association I intend to make. The exercise is meant to be helpful to NYB, but it is also useful to me for one main reason: it punctuates one of the issues encountered by WP editors, often resulting in edit wars, personal attacks, blocking, banning, etc.

It is my personal opinion that, in the face of prima facie (or other primary) evidence to the contrary, no matter how many reliable secondary sources exist to contradict it, editors should strive to collaborate, perhaps in carefully phrasing sentences, so as not to contradict the facts borne out by primary evidence (or staring the reader in the face) despite its inadmissibility.

I’ll cite the relevance to my referenced issue in the emails. The relevance to NYB, follows.

There are a couple of reliable secondary sources, one of which is cited in the article to support the last sentence in the lead section of “The Volokh Conspiracy. Clearly the sources indicate a paywall is going to appear this month, If it doesn’t, and it’s not written about, then what? It’s primary evidence. What will Newyorkbrad do at midnight on June 30th 2014 if the paywall hasn’t appeared before then? Delete the sentence? Add original research to qualify the statement, to correct the source, or remove it until it can be replaced using a reliable secondary source correctly? (Sorry, I didn’t mean to ruin your Sunday night!)

I’ve discovered a bunch of these curious exceptions within the WM environment. I plan to create new section to begin listing them. It should be fun, because it is. If you have a question, list it. If you have an answer or solution, ask the question, provide an example, and solve it with an example. (Most questions will be rhetorical.)

Thank you all… ElenOfTroy (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Editing Misplaced Pages: Literary Contradictions

ElenOfTroy (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@User:ElenOfTroy...As per notices on your userpage, I have nominated all these misuses of Misplaced Pages space for speedy deletion.--MONGO 20:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

ElenOfTroy, welcome back to Misplaced Pages (you may want to change the templates on your user and user talk pages, based on what you have written here). This is not appropriate use of another user's user talk page; thus, I have copied over the content to User:ElenOfTroy/Editing Misplaced Pages: Literary Contradictions where you can continue to work. Risker (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Availability note

Traveling with limited online time and access this weekend (as I should have mentioned earlier); back mid-day on Monday.

Note to Midwesterners and Wolfeans: the Park Square Theater (St. Paul, Minnesota) stage production of Rex Stout's The Red Box, adapted by Joseph Goodrich, is Satisfactory and should be seen. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Does this claim:

The wealth of the Koç family, however, originates from money and property which was appropriated through the Armenian Genocide in 1915. The confiscated Armenian but also Greek property led to the emergence of a new wealthy social Turkish class.

Make a claim affecting living persons which can be deemed "contentious"? I have this peculiar notion that claims asserting that a family profited from genocide are particularly contentious, requiring exceeding strong sourcing. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this sort of claim should be strongly sourced. I don't have the subject-matter expertise to evaluate the specific sources that have been offered. (And I'd also caution that as a general matter of historiography, we should be wary of ascribing any phenomenon or event to a single cause where the actual events were more complex.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I was told I was "emptyminded" on this, and that it is perfectly proper as an edit <g>. Collect (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Worse news: The "sources" do not remotely support the claims made in the first place. Collect (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

And that material is still there - argh! Collect (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Next up -- Marco Rubio being labelled a "climate change denier" which was one of the general BLP issues in the Climate Change case IIRC. I suggested conservative wording, but those who appear to regard Rubio as a major player in the climate debate seem intent of,IMO, overstating what he says, and using newspaper headlines as thought they were part of the article proper :(. Cheers -- looks like the "American Politics" ArbCom case disaster is yet to unfold. Collect (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that someone is going to use your comment that "I suggested conservative wording" out of context someday.... Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

That has already been done too damn often. Meanwhile, MastCell (with no advance warning) posted at WP:ANEW - including his claim that (apparently) the use of "climate change denier" is not "contentious" and that it is essential that readers be told about such evil-thoughters. I fear he did not read the Climate Change decision (sigh). BTW, the Infobox officeholder RfC seems to have been totally ignored at this time. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Your summary of my viewpoint is disingenuous and mistaken, and the lack of any actual diffs to back your claims should raise red flags in that regard. As for advance warning... I tried that the last time you edit-warred and violated 3RR, just a month or two ago. I gave you a heads-up rather than reporting you. And you responded aggressively and gave me a bunch of BS about it—even though you were the one violating policy, and I went out of my way to be courteous and give you a chance to self-revert. I'm past the point in my wiki-career where I keep doing the same thing and expecting different results from people. This time, I gave you a courtesy notice when I posted the ANEW report, as per our best practices, and now it's up to someone else to decide how to handle your 4 reverts. MastCell  00:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Follett v. Town of McCormick

I'm working on a CCI, one of the items is an article about a law case - Follett v. Town of McCormick

The sections called Facts of the Case and Prior History is mostly a copy paste, with very light editing, of the text in the Findlaw summary.

I am assuming that the text of actual Supreme Court decisions is public domain, even if copied into a copyrighted document. However, I wasn't sure to what extend the wording in Findlaw was a straight copy from the opinion, versus a Findlaw editor's summarization.

If I go to the Wikisource page and chose the "Opinion of the Court" it appears, if the Wikisource was done correctly, that the copied text is virtually all from the decision. Which would make it OK (except that the reference needs to be added.

I'm also mulling our rule that we do not Wikilink inside quotes. This isn't strictly a quote, but darn close.

Do we consider it acceptable to write an article about a case where virtually all the content is copied from the case? I am sure it is not a best practice, but is it allowed?

Any thoughts you have would be appreciated. --S Philbrick(Talk) 14:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@TPS, I see that brad will not be around until Monday. On the one hand, this is not a rush. On the other hand, I'm addressing it to Brad, because he is the first lawyer who came to mind. Anyone else is welcome to chime in.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

As best I can tell from what you've linked (and to the extent I can read it on a Blackberry), the Findlaw page basically is the opinion of the Court, followed by the separate opinions—I don't see a separate editorial summary section. (Obviously it's a relatively short opinion, which is not unusual for Justice Douglas during this period.) So we should be okay from a copyright point of view, although I may take a shot at copyediting the article for style and sourcing. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. My narrow focus is whether I need to do anythign to address copyright concerns, and it sounds like that's not the case. If you want to improve it editorially, that would be great. In fact, when I read it, I saw the line That judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court of General Sessions for McCormick County and then by the Supreme Court of South Carolina. and was surprised at the conclusion, but reading closer, I see that SCOTUS overturned it, but I do not see why. There seems to be a gap between the South Carolina opinion, and the result, mentioned in the lead, but not explained in any way. To add a pedantic, but hopefully important point, the lead is supposed to summarize the body of the article, and I do not see anything in the body except for the name of the Justice delivering the opinion. --S Philbrick(Talk) 23:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The article clearly has the sense of being half-finished. I would ask Pseudo-Richard if he plans to return to it (in his own words), but I see he hasn't been active in several months. If no one fleshes out the substance in the next few days, I will do so, although I must admit it's a case I hadn't heard of before. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

last sentence of your recent ANI post

I think you mean unblock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Fixed. And my thanks to Andy the Grump as well (see the page history for why). Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

a thought

re COI, it's not really a COI, however since you were apparently involved in the decision to ban Kohs, perhaps your !vote on the page should be tempered accordingly? Alf has previously suggested that anyone who received a scholarship to the conference had a conflict of interest w.r.t the conference (a contention several including me rejected) - however I did posit that the committee that decided to ban him may not be in the best position to decide if such material should be considered "controversial" - since you may not want to believe that your own actions were controversial - so it's not really a COI in the formal sense, but there is a sense of being somehow a subject. Your insider knowledge notwithstanding, perhaps a comment rather than a !vote? Does my argument hold any water?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that is needed. Are people who want to use Misplaced Pages to promote an ultra liberty viewpoint recusing? How about anyone who contributes to WO (who might be suspected of wanting to promote attempts to subvert the encyclopedia). Johnuniq (talk) 04:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not talking about NYBrad's political philosophies more generally or what web forums he haunts in his spare time, I'm saying that if he went into a room, decided to do X, walked out of the room, and then is asked "was X controversial enough to be added to this article", could NYB be truly neutral about same, since it involves a decision he actually participated in making? It's not editing an article about himself, but it is, indirectly, editing content about a decision he was one the few people involved with, if I understand correctly. It's a minor point, and I'm only suggesting that he consider recusing himself from actually voting in the discussion in the same way an involved admin would not use his tools? In this case he'd be recusing his right to !vote. As to your other point, WO forum members would not be conflicted by my logic, but Kohs of course would be. I suppose that's a moot point since Kohs is already editing there and has already !voted, under the pseudon***CARRIER LOST***

Looking at it again, NYB clearly stated his COI, so I suppose whether he puts his comment under "oppose" or elsewhere isn't that big of a deal. Nothing to see here, go about your business.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. If you aren't jesting and if Mr. Kohs is actually participating in that discussion about himself via a sockpuppet without disclosing it, a claim I am extremely reluctant to accept without powerful evidence, then it would be doubly problematic, secondarily because he is indefblocked or banned and not allowed to edit at all, and primarily because his conflict of interest in that discussion would exceed mine sevenfold. (And if you are jesting, it might be best to say so, as I'm sincerely not sure.) And with that I am going to again step back from commenting on this matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

sorry I thought my being cut-off midstream by nefarious ninjas clipping my modem cables would have illustrated I was kidding...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. My apologies for my humor detector's not being well-honed at this insomniac hour. I empathize with the pain of having a punchline squashed like this. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)