User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2015/Jun

Question about something I vaguely recall you being involved with
Wikipedia made it into a SCOTUS decision. They didn't cite Wikipedia, but they backed up the guy that did. Weren't you tracking decisions made by courts of record that mentioned Wikipedia? Here's the decision. WP was mentioned on page 7 of the PDF. An amusement park worker was convicted for Internet threats against his wife, but by linking his self-styled rap threat to our Freedom of speech, it was all okie-dokie (his rap was about after his ex-wife got a restraining order for his other posts, he rapped about whether the piece of paper could stop a bullet). Think of all the money you wasted at law school and hours searching for references to support free speech claims ;).--DHeyward (talk) 10:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, I was being facetious about the WP linking getting him off. It was a pretty narrow ruling on what the minimum culpable state is not.  They avoided defining what the minimum culpable state is for that statute but it's not as low as negligence (and appears to have been a quirky 3rd circuit precedent, though IANAL).  They avoided any free speech entanglements either.   It was interesting that they called out the WP linking on Facebook without any particular finding about it.  Almost like it was possibly a fact the jury would have considered negligent instead of reckless or higher since negligence standard was all they ruled on.  So have your pick, WP as your 1st ammendment lawyer or WP as a negligence affirmative defense.  :) --DHeyward (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As you say, the Elonis majority went out its way to reach a decision on narrow statutory-construction grounds without reaching any First Amendment issues. As for courts citing Wikipedia, it's common enough now that it doesn't draw that much notice any more, although (quite sensibly) such citations are ordinarily limited to articles containing background information about a topic, as opposed to the sharply disputed issues in the case. If you haven't seen it already, you might enjoy this, and reading a couple of the cases I link to. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * lol. This is probably a bad indicator of being here too long: I started reading the Utah "Jet Ski" and see page 6 Jet Ski, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_ski and the first thing I have to do is check to make sure the article really lives at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_Ski and the lower case "Jet ski" is redirect (it is, was, and does). Minus 1 point for appellate court for imprecise reference and uncorrected inadvertant error - (do real judges get angry for a "pointy" motion to correct a harmless inadvertant error as nunc pro tunc using the exact same language as was used in the motion for summary judgement they reversed)? Thanks for links :) --DHeyward (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Practice varies in how to get typographical or other formal errors in court opinions corrected. (Here we are talking about typographical or similar errors; there's a growing literature on courts silently making more substantive changes to their opinions, as for example this article.) In some courts, you can write a letter to the Clerk, or to the Judge who wrote the opinion, pointing out a typo that should be fixed. For that matter, in the U.S. Supreme Court, every slip opinion has a header at the top asking all readers to notify the Reporter of Decisions of any "typographical or other formal errors" so they can be corrected before the bound volumes go to the printer. For example, here is the Elonis case; see the note at the top of the first page of the opinion (not the first page of the syllabus).
 * Last year, I was reading an opinion of the New York Court of Appeals on its website and I noticed an obvious but meaning-affecting typo (it said "employee" where it should have said "employer"). I called the court, and the staff member I spoke with said he'd speak with the Judge who'd written the opinion, and the next day the typo was fixed. I will never be a judge, but now I tell all my friends that at least I contributed one letter to the New York Reports. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Inevitable warning
Hey, weren't you just warned earlier this week to edit only in your own section? :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the link you're looking for is here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, should have read that sooner ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * de:Dreadstar, written in memory of an admin whose protection of a FA was regarded as abuse. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well... I think that may be a bit of an oversimplification of what actually happened, but I don't see much value to discussing it here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't say what happened (how could I?) nor would I want to discuss anything, - I removed the view (!) that he abused his admin privilege from my talk page. - I will not describe what happened at John Le Mesurier, - it's simple enough to get from the article history. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I still don't want this page to turn into a general forum for discussing decisions etc., but I will admit I thought you were referring to a different FA altogether. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I tried not to point to any specific FA but to express that I miss an admin who protected an article thinking that was the right thing to do. I translate articles by the missed to German (appeared in the Signpost), - Dreadstar is on the German Main page now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Your RD question
Re: Reference desk/Humanities

Just noting that I've posted another answer to your question. I wanted to make sure you didn't miss it since you already posted a "thank you" in the thread. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I did indeed see it.  And I also responded at that page.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Advice for younger editors
Your name was given as a reason for reverting an edit of mine on the above page. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Guidance_for_younger_editors#Second_discussion

I removed what could be the worst possible advice for a young person on the internet, which is to privately contact an unknown (to them) person for help. No responsible person would ever give this advice. If ever this were to lead to the youg person getting into trouble (bullying, harasement, sexual exploitation) because of this advice, quite apart from the harm it would cause them, it would seriously damage Wikipedia. Social neworking sites have been forced to make major changes because of harm caused to youngsters using their services. Wikipedia is safe because all communications are visible to all users. Suggesting private email contact removes this inherrent protection is crazy. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * My name was probably mentioned because I did the first draft of this page back in 2010. I understand the reasons for your concern, but the question is, if we remove that paragraph of advice, what do we replace it with? There are some situations that any editor, much less a younger editor, would be unwilling and/or ill-advised to discuss in plain view of the general public on one of the most prominent websites in the world. So suggesting that in such circumstances they contact a trusted person privately is hardly optimal&mdash;but what would we suggest in its place? Perhaps a narrower class of trusted persons, whoever that be? Suggestions welcome, here or, better still, on the essay's talkpage. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Hardly optimal' is a gross understatement. We are suggesting that young people privately, and possibly secretly, contact unknown (to them) adults by private email.  This is contrary to all good child protection practice.


 * It is not just the young people who are placed at risk by this bad advice. You are, no doubt, aware of the problems that various social media got into in the past regarding the protection of children.  Facebook had to completely revise all their operating procedures because of child protection issue.  It would only take one case of child grooming by a single rogue admin for the whole of Wikipedia to come under intense media scrutiny.  With our limited resources that could be the end of WP.


 * The admins also put themselves at risk. It is not unknown for young people to make false accusations against people that they have had dealings with.  A mere accusation of serious impropriety against a young person could ruin the life of an admin even if they were completely innocent.


 * This is not a case of deciding whether we have 'A' or 'B'. The current advice is positivly dangerous and must be removed immediately while we consider the available options.  It is like a BLP issue only worse.   Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns and I know this subject is being discussed on the essay's talkpage. The question remains, in lieu of "contact an administrator," what advice do we give? Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Contact [insert named person at the WMF]". This is one very specific set of circumstances where Wikipedia does want a single point of contact rather than the chaos of the OTRS queue or "email a random person"; I doubt even the most hardline of the antis would begrudge WMF money being spent on hiring someone to deal with child-protection situations. If we can afford to subsidize wastes-of-pixels like Wikiversity and Wikidata, I'm sure we can afford to hire another person to the amorphous "community engagement" department. ( The Community Engagement department at the WMF has 38 paid employees , and that's not counting the ones hired by individual chapters. It's not like this is a cottage industry.) –  iridescent  18:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I resent the claim that NYB was mentioned as a reason for the revert. Anyone with a basic knowledge of English  can see that  this is a flagrant mistruth. I understand his concerns but IMO   is gettiing a tad too vociferous and that his views are disproportionate to the reality. I  have escalated the issue to  the Foundation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It was this sentence from Kudpung that made me think that NYB was mentioned as a reason for the revert (I have unwikied a bit),"Removals of this much content from an article, guideline, or essay need doscussion - especially by the people who worked so hard to write them. FYI:, , . --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)" 
 * I think I misunderstood the FYI. I thought that the list of names was meant to be of, 'the people who worked so hard', I have just realised now that that was not the case but I hope you can see what it looked like.  My sincere apologies to Kudpung, it was a misunderstanding.


 * I make no apologies though for pushing the point though and I am pleased that Kudpung has escalated this to the foundation; that is exactly the level at which this should be discussed. Is there a record of what has been said anywhere? I would like to be involved.  The dangers of encouraging childred to engage in private contact of any kind with unknown (to them) people in the internet are huge.  We could cause harm to the child, the involved adult, and Wikipedia itself.  If you think that I am a lone crazy alarmist please contact any competent children's organisation and ask if they think it is a good idea. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I know you mean well but I think you are an alarmist. See the more recent posts on the discussion -that's why I keep suggesting that we keep evrything in perspective and not lose focus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I am not being alarmist, as I suggest above, just contact any reputable organisation that deals with children and you will find that they would never suggest that children with problems should privately contact unknown (to them) adults on the internet.


 * Could you please let me know what you have said to the Foundation. This really is an issue that they should be dealing with and I would like to contribute.


 * Finally, can I suggest that we continue this discussion on the article talk page (it might help to copy some of this discussion to there) Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC).


 * Martin, whether you are an alarmist or not, you brought the expression into the discussion, and you got my opinion. I don't see any need to copy this to the main discussion (unless NYB overrules me) because it adds nothing to the discussion there. If the Foundation responds - and it's only an 'if' - I will certainly make a link to it on the discussion and you will be free to take it up with them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That is fine. Let us go back to the article talk page anyway. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Your heavy-handed sanction
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--A21sauce (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification. I am responding there now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess you're no longer the lovable little fuzzball you were as an Arb, Brad... Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you look at the ANI thread, though, you'll see I'm as long-winded as ever: that must count for something. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

What other pages need Pending Changes?
Hi Brad, at the recent AE discussion you mentioned that putting GG-related pages under Pending Changes was a good idea. I see the lot of the problematic BLPs are already under PC or higher protection. What pages did you have in mind that could also use protecting? 14:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If the peanut gallery may chime in (ignore if unwelcome): some of the most urgent candidates might include Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu, Frank Wu, Anita Sarkeesian, Leigh Alexander, Ellen Pao, Memory Quest, Revolution 60, DiGRA, PAX, Campus Sexual Assault (see ARCA), Carry That Weight (Mattress Performance), Cultural Marxism (former battle zone), Arthur Chu, Christina Hof Summers, Milo Yiannopoulos,The Fine Young Capitalists,  Crash Override Network, Criticism of Wikipedia, Online Harassment, Katherine Clark (proactive), 4chan, and 8chan. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Adam Baldwin's page has been subject to serious defamatory vandalism as recently as May in addition to milder vandalism, but is completely unprotected.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 22:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Concur; Baldwin should be put into this as well. And probably also Milo Yiannopoulos and Christina Hoff Sommers.  Maayyyyyybeeee Controversial Reddit communities, too.--Jorm (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of the pages people are listing here are already protected. Controversial Reddit communities is due to come off protection in a couple of days.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think many of these would be good candidates for either semi or PC1, though I haven't investigated the editing histories of each.
 * By the way, the point was made on AE that some of the nastiest BLP violations in this area have been taking place on talkpages rather than in the actual articles. I should know this but I don't&mdash;when an article is semi'd or PC1'd, does/should the talkpage sometime receive the same protection? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. Each page is its own. You can cascade protection to include transcluded pages but that won't apply here.--Jorm (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that PC may allow for that; I only retain rights on mw.org; my super powers here are gone so I can't check and mw.org doesn't run Pending Changes.--Jorm (talk) 14:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Brad, speaking only from my own experience, many admin try to NOT sp the talk page except as a very last resort, else it looks like we are picking on IPs or worse yet, taking sides with content, which can cause more drama at ANI/AN. I think I've sp'ed the talk page of an article maybe 2 or 3 times is all, and that was due mainly to vandalism.  Many of us probably err too much on the side of caution with this.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 10:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think I have ever protected a talkpage, but I can see myself applying PC1 on a talkpage that was getting stuff that clearly needed removal. Though you should probably accompany that with an editnotice. Something like "If you want to discuss an allegation against this subject that you've heard from 8***n but even the tabloids won't touch, then please make sure you find a reliable source before mentioning it here.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  09:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

July 8: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)