User talk:Richwales/Archives/2013-04

Legal threats

I am not going to try and convince you of anything but, that really didn't seem like a legal threat from what WP:NLT states.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Reasonable people might differ on this, but when someone says basically that "I'm going to report you people to the authorities and get you into major legal trouble if you interfere with my editing", that is a legal threat IMO. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I actually consider myself to be a reasonable person. Were those really authorities and was it "legal trouble" that was the goal of whatever the statement was? I don't think so. I am sure there were a number of reasons to block the editor, but WP:NLT does not appear to be one of them.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, I am not trying to convince you to unblock or change your mind here but, senators, representative, the IRS, and DOE are not legal authorities. Clearly this was not a reasonable response in any stretch of the imagination but a legal threat? Is the statement: "I will write my congressman" a legal threat? The Department of Energy and even the IRS are not legal bodies but simply government agencies. Making threats of any kind certainly is not the way to communicate with others and as I said they certainly deserved a block, but I would have thought it would have been for disruption.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

He was invoking US tax law and the IRS — saying that if his "corrections" were reverted, he would report the Wikimedia Foundation to the IRS for engaging in political activity inconsistent with the WMF's status as a tax-exempt charitable organization. I don't mind that much that he was threatening to complain to Senators and Congressmen, but threatening to sic the IRS on us is, in my opinion, as much a "legal threat" as if he were literally saying he would file a lawsuit. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

At best this appears to be a "perceived legal threat". Per WP:NLT:

Rather than blocking immediately, administrators should seek to clarify the user's meaning and make sure that a mere misunderstanding is not involved. For example, a user might assert another editor's comments are "defamatory" because they are unaware of certain policies (such as harassment, personal attacks, incivility, etc.) and require assistance in dealing with such comments. While such comments may not be per se legal threats, they may fall under the scope of the aforementioned policies and repeated or disruptive usage can result in the user being blocked.

You did not appear to attempt any clarification. Obviously you didn't feel one was needed but to me this was as much an over reaction by you as an administrator in an almost punitive manner. Taking away MWF's tax exempt status is not a legal matter. It is a tax matter. As ridiculous as the whole thing was, this doesn't seem to be helping in my opinion. The exact statement was "I WILL inform senators, representative, IRS, and DoE if an administrator removes any of my contributions when the edit may support a political agenda on this topic.". He did not state he was going to sic the IRS the foundation, just that he would inform them. OK...inform them of what.....that an editor was editing in a manner he didn't like? That he felt this was something that would in any way effect the tax exempt status of the foundation? Come on Rich, you could have attempted to clarify this before an immediate indeff block.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

We may need to "agree to disagree" here, but I called this one as I saw it, and I see what the user said as a legal threat — specifically, a statement of intention to complain that Wikipedia admins' actions in disagreement with him should result in action being taken against the Wikimedia Foundation through the tax laws. And yes, I most certainly do see a "tax matter" of whether the WMF is violating its status under US tax legislation as being a legal matter. In fact, I am going to go one step further and send a heads-up e-mail to WMF's legal department, just to be sure they are aware of the situation and can take whatever action they may feel is required. I brought up this issue at WP:ANI last night, and two admins and two other editors agreed with my action, but if you still believe I made a mistake, by all means feel free to revive that discussion (even though it was formally closed). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 14:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I purposely did not include myself at that AN/I discussion because this really is your call. While I feel strongly enough to speak directly to you, I made it clear I was not trying to change your mind. I am not really questioning your actions, just that it may not have been the best route. I do still disagree that that was a legal threat. A threat, but not a legal one.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

An attempt to close the discussion was malformed. I have corrected that. Please feel free to revert if your feel there was more needing to be discussed there.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

As I said, I think you and I are just going to have to "agree to disagree" on this one. At least we can do so in a calm and friendly fashion. Thanks for letting me know what you think. As for the malformed closure of the ANI thread, it appears someone reopened the thread after it had initially been closed. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

We need to be more supportive of admin and at the same time not let everything go unquestioned. I can see why editors may agree with this, but I do think it is a pretty slim line.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I take no offence at all at your holding a different view from mine on this. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Note to self: Here is a diff link to Nanoatzin's block notice and the subsequent exchange. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe self-proclaimed naming and advocacy?

Help please! We're in a bit of a pickle here and here. Thank you for your brief attention. --Septimus Wilkinson (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much I can do, but I'll take a look. In any case, please remember that disputes like this need to be handled by calm discussion; "edit warring" (or anything resembling edit warring) is not acceptable, even if you are convinced you are right and everyone else is wrong. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Syrian civil war

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Syrian civil war. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Suggestions

Stubs   Cleanup Kartvelian peoples   George-Emmanuel Lazaridis Sport in Georgia   Bangladeshi name Andros Town   Arsikere Hubley, Nova Scotia   Merge Georgian mythology   Sealing (Mormonism) Ioane Petritsi   Black people in Mormon doctrine Piblokto   List of assassinations and assassination attempts Unimedia.md   Add sources Twana language   United States Constitution Screeve   Roseanne (TV series) Moldova Suverană   Georgian verb paradigm Miller v. Albright   Wikify Seabright, Nova Scotia   Singaporean nationality law Boutiliers Point, Nova Scotia   Right to keep and bear arms Amittai   Thomas Pownall Boultbee Upper Tantallon, Nova Scotia   Expand Smolník   Human rights in Japan Metropolitan Learning Center (Portland, Oregon)   Illegal immigration in the United Kingdom Icelandic Language Day   Street v. New York

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: SPI

With respect to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DVMt/Archive#03_April_2013, you must acknowledge that it is a reasonable suspicion, that an editor has appeared, and only made a single edit to an AfD [1] to defend an article created by an editor who has been using sockpuppets recently. I'm not sure what sort of evidence you are looking for, but I've seen plenty of CU requests on things less clear. What is needed is just reasonable suspicion. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't sufficiently convinced last night — certainly not enough to do a sock block based solely on this one edit. However, I'll admit that I'm still learning the ropes here, and if you feel this case does justify a CU check, I'm willing to revive the SPI and endorse it for a CU. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Well-taken points

Hi Rich. Thank you for your well-made points on this message. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure if my point got through (see his response), but I needed to try.

I know we have disagreed strongly on various issues from time to time, but I do want you to know that I appreciate the efforts you are putting into trying to improve Wikipedia. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

As far as the editor reverting your edits, this is not something unexpected from those who pursue their POV to such an extent and by trying to subdue the spirit of their opponents by employing personal attacks. It's all a part of their zealous mission for the "truth" as they perceive it.

Regarding your comment about my efforts at improving Wikipedia, first let me thank you for your nice comments; they really mean a lot to me, especially because they were made by an editor I greatly respect. We may have had our disagreements, in good faith, but I always valued your perspective and I consider you a reliable and trustworthy editor whose opinion I have always held in high regard. Take care and thanks again. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

GOCE April 2013 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter We have completed our March backlog elimination drive. The drive wrap-up newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the April blitz! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 20:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Lbrad2001 SPI

(copied from User talk:Drmies)

 Clerk note: Hi. If you have time, could you review the Lbrad2001 SPI and do any blocking you might consider appropriate now? The SPI was CU-declined, and it's been sitting around for a couple of weeks waiting for someone to take action. Since you left a comment before the CU-decline, I thought you might be in a good position to handle this one — but if you can't for some reason, let me know. Thanks. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, that one. Wasn't that about which gun was used in which Steven Seagal movie or something like that? I'll have a look. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
• Rich, I see no reason for a block based on this report, or the article mentioned in it. As far as I'm concerned you can close it. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Banning appeal

Hello. You recommend here [2] that if I have "concrete evidence" that Will Beback has in the past played a manipulative role in Arbcom discussions I should immediately bring it to their attention. I am not sure how that would be defined. If an editor (myself, let's say) were in the past to have been topic banned from a NRM article under demonstrably flimsy pretexts; and if there is reliable evidence (from WBB himself) that he had e-mailed an arbitrator re the case just prior to that decision being made; and if WBB had a proven history of secretly alleging COI against his idealogical opponents...do you think that would be "concrete evidence"? Or just circumstantial evidence, that would be ignored by Arbcom? Rumiton (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The only thing you can really do right now is to send ArbCom whatever information you do have. In my view, your own first task should be to seek a reversal of your current topic ban — primarily on the grounds that you promise not to engage in any future disruptive, "battleground" behaviour w/r/t Prem Rawat or any other articles. You will presumably also want to question whether it really ever was necessary or appropriate for TBotNL to have imposed an indefinite / permanent topic ban on you in the first place, but don't dwell unduly on this matter; from the standpoint of your own ban, the most important issue is your behaviour, not that of TBotNL or anyone else.

As I said before, ArbCom's decision at that time was to reclassify the ground rules under which blocks or topic bans relating to the Prem Rawat article (and other related articles) should be dealt with. It appears that last year's ArbCom members were skeptical of the appropriateness of your ban — and I think they should probably have continued on at that time with the consideration of the ban appeal, rather than closing the appeal and asking you and the others to resubmit it on a different page — but given that they didn't keep the appeal open under the new rules, the appropriate thing for you and the others to do would be to resubmit the appeal now (as an Arbitration Enforcement matter). Again, don't dwell heavily right now on TBotNL's possible misdeeds (other than to suggest, politely, that his action may have been premature and excessive); the main point at issue is whether you can convince ArbCom that even if disruptive / battleground editing behaviour was a problem a few months ago, it will not be a problem now if your ban is lifted.

If, by any unlikely chance, you have something specific and concrete about WBB's actions showing that he has been (and/or still is) manipulating things behind the scenes, you should definitely bring that to ArbCom's attention (probably off wiki, by e-mail). Suspicions that he was/is doing this — or assumptions that he must be continuing to do this now because of things he did in the past — are really not something you can reliably speak to, so I would recommend you not try to do so. (Think of what a witness can and can't say in court: you can and should talk about things you know, but your personal assumptions or conclusions are out of order and would rightly be objected to and stricken from the record.) I don't think you should feel the need to bring up WBB's past again and again in order to be sure ArbCom won't do a flip-flop for no good reason (or for bad reasons); the majority of the currently sitting arbs are carryovers from last year, and we can safely assume by now that they are all up to speed regarding WBB's case (including any evidence that needed to be kept confidential) — and, at the moment, I'll note that it appears a majority of the arbs are still opposed to letting WBB return (not to say some of them might not change their minds, but it doesn't look like a whitewash to me). I'm not saying this out of any blind reverence for ArbCom; I know they are fallible and flawed, and also overloaded with work, but I am willing to assume that they are trying, and I don't really think any better way to handle our otherwise intractable disputes can be devised at this time, so I believe we should do what we reasonably can to support ArbCom and help them do a good job (which includes civilly questioning their decisions if we think those decisions may have been made in error).

I hope the above helps, and I wish you and the others good luck with your renewed ban appeal. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this thoughtful and thorough reply. I will do as you suggest, but the crucial point is that I was never accused of being disruptive. Blade banned me to "break the endless deadlock." I and others did not perceive that there was such a deadlock, but even if there had been, I don't believe this was a legitimate action. I'll start work on an appeal this evening. Thanks again. Rumiton (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I have made the appeal, already it is not going well. Your comments would be welcome. Rumiton (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Gbeach03 SPI

(copied from User talk:JetBlast)

Hi. Could you take another look at your SPI request (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gbeach03)? It doesn't look like a case of sockpuppetry to me. Rather, it appears that the user initially created an account with the name of his organization — and when that account was blocked per policy, he followed the instructions in the block notice and created another account with a different, non-objectionable name. Or am I missing something here? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, If you have a look (if you can) the company account name was blocked after i put the sock puppet case in. When i put the case in both accounts where unblocked. It was me who reported the username after reporting the sock puppet stuff. Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 08:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)