User talk:Seth Finkelstein

Welcome!

Hello Seth Finkelstein, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Wikiacc (talk) 15:39, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

The address 140.247.201.190 reverse-resolves to the hostname "roam201-190.student.harvard.edu". I believe the "student.harvard.edu" part of the hostname indicates that editor is unlikely to be Alan Dershowitz himself. Though by now it's likely someone has told him about the article. -Seth Finkelstein 02:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so, but 140.247.219.31 resolves directly to Dershowitz. Anyone who has received an email from Dershowitz in the past will be able to tell you that. 140.247.219.31 is responsible for blanking the page, partially and completely - [1] [2]- Xed 10:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

your bio page

If you want, you can put your bio up for an WP:AfD vote to get it deleted. Sdedeo (tips) 16:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm unsure if that's the smart thing to do though, as doing it will attract people who want to be contrarian. -- Seth Finkelstein 21:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now that it is up, you might as well make your pitch as to why you are not notable at the AFD. Put it out as a first level bullet * with a Delete introduction. I've already argued that you should be listed to as any other editor in good standing would be. (As opposed to Mr. Brandt, who is banned and whose biography has survived 8 AFDs at last count, some or all of which he may have initiated.) GRBerry 03:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't I been making my case in the "Question" thread? It looks like I'd be way outvoted ... Seth Finkelstein 03:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately (from your perspective), 35 of the 52 individuals who have received the EFF Pioneer Award have articles in Wikipedia (just by counting red links and blue links). It seems an EFF Pioneer Award is a strong indicator of notability. The argument that the article requires defense from vandals is weak because all wiki articles require defense from vandals. I'm afraid that you are doomed to live with your fame - which is better than the alternative! --Jacknstock 04:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But, essentially, it doesn't matter if someone vandalizes, say, Bill Gates' bio or the George W. Bush page. They're at another level entirely. It does matter much more if I'm getting a little rare news coverage one day, and someone takes that as an opportunity to sling mud at me in what's allegedly a reference site. And no, the caveats of not believing everything you read are not much comfort. The damage is still done. It's an issue of how much harm can be wreaked on a person by the vandals. And Wikipedia is just off the scale here when it comes to bios of living people. Seth Finkelstein 04:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument about the reputability of Wikipedia, not the notability of Seth Finkelstein. I agree that unethical people can be hurtful and/or damaging in what they say or write, and this is particularly the case on-line, where there is very little personal accountability. --Jacknstock 04:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's more. It's that Wikipedia's processes are particularly flawed and potentially hurtful to living people who are slightly notable but not extremely so. Seth Finkelstein 04:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And yet Jimmy Wales won an EFF Pioneer Award. "Empowerment of individuals" at the cost of other individuals? --Jacknstock 05:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can see your point. Besides, I'd never heard of you before the afd nomination. I have changed my vote to "delete." However, I fear we deletionists cannot win in this case. --Jacknstock 02:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hate to have to make that argument, but I think it's the truth. I'm just not at the level which is required to comfortably bear the risk. Seth Finkelstein 06:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting citations

Seth, last time I checked, there was no consensus about how to cite sources or format them. My preference is to have a footnote corresponding to an entry in a references list. This is created by placing whatever you want as a footnote between <ref> and </ref> tags. For formatting citations I find it most convenient to use one of the templates on WP:CITET. Alan Pascoe 22:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Seth, are you mad enough to write an article for my site?

You should be. This living-person bio stuff, particularly for marginals like you and me, is out of hand. Would you like to write an article for Wikipedia-Watch.org on the problem? I really like the points you made on your AfD. Google is going to start ranking my site properly, and more people will read anything you write on my site than they would on yours. If we work together, maybe we can get Wikipedia to treat us with more respect. And with any luck, maybe it will happen before we need to send out resumes someday to find our next job. --Daniel Brandt 66.142.90.22 22:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet (yet!). Thanks, but at this time, I'm still "working within the system". I'm sympathetic to your own concerns, but right now, I want to avoid anything that's associated with threats of litigation. Maybe we can be "Good Cop/Bad Cop" :-) -- Seth Finkelstein 12:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand. Since I'm already in "indefinite block" hell, I had the freedom to write a new page at Wikipedia-Watch.org/wikitort.html and perhaps you can comment on it via your blog. Or will something you write on your blog constitute a legal threat? Be careful -- you are probably already in purgatory just by communicating with me. --Daniel Brandt 68.89.128.136 10:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost article

I touch on the experience with the article about you and use some quotes in my article for this week's issue of The Wikipedia Signpost, our community newspaper. It's in the context of Angela Beesley's request and the issue of subjects getting their own articles deleted generally. Feel free to review the draft version and let me know if there are any problems with it. --Michael Snow 07:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German Article

Given how you feel about having an article here, I'm sure you'll be thrilled to see that you also have an article on the German language wikipedia. I haven't figured out interlanguage links, but you can see it here [3]. I speak no German, but have tried to use English to let them know that you would rather not have an article on the English Wikipedia. GRBerry 13:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Yes. Thank you. I've confirmed it on that page :-(. Seth Finkelstein 16:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry overmuch, I and others will closely monitor the article. Doesn't the German Wikipedia have a reputation for its being relatively strict about articles? --Eldred 09:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, in which case, I gain nothing. You may be wrong, in which case, I will be the one affected by whatever harm is done (could be trivial ... could be non-trivial). See the problem? And I do worry, since there's been too many times in my life when a supposedly trustworthy party has done the wrong thing. I'd much rather that behavior not even be a worry in the first place. -- Seth Finkelstein 03:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian article

On behalf of people I have no right to speak on behalf of, sorry about the kerfuffle over your article and the Guardian article referring to it. I had a go at removing it but ran into WP:3RR, so I had to give up. I can sympathise with your point of view - you've just been appointed unpaid policeman for your own personalised graffiti wall. As I said on the talk page, let me know if it ever comes up for deletion again - I'll support it for sure. Orpheus 16:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. A mention of the Guardian article in itself doesn't really bother me, though I think it's a silly item to include, the epitome of navel-gazing. It's all the rest of the vandalism that's been generated from the attention which is the problem. I sadly suspect I'll never get out of that being "appointed unpaid policeman for your own personalised graffiti wall". Too many people are going to have a we'll-show-him! attitude. -- Seth Finkelstein 17:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have protected the article, so that anonymous and new users can't edit it. bogdan 21:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the community is currently testing functionality which would reduce the necessity to police your own article. Cheers, jaco♫plane 22:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments re your article

Hi - I realize that your article can be a troll magnet, but there are now a substantial number of Wikipedians watching your article to make sure it meets living person biography standards. It would be easier to just remove it, but I think you can be confident that over a year it will be correct and not slanderous 99-99.9% of the time, the other 10-90 minutes every week will be reverted as quickly as possible. I would hope you don't feel that you need to defend it for the rest of your life. I would also point out that the methods you are using to compain about it, like The Register, are more likely to attract the attention of trolls - who read the popular media and are not, normally, part of the Wikipedia Community. May I suggest raising your concerns on biography vandalism prevention or its associated talk page, where you can get in touch with reputable Wikipedians who value the reputation of the encyclopedia and want to help you. --Trödel 19:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI - I thought you'd want to see this discussion Wikipedia:Courtesy blanking, had I been aware of this policy I would have supported blanking the article and rebuilding it using resourced material only. --Trödel 19:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, though my problem is less "resourced material" than the issue of the article being an "attractive nuisance", which is a problem as long as it exists. -- Seth Finkelstein 04:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seth, I just want to say that I really feel for you, man. While any number of arguments "for" a biography page (such as it's not the subject who gets to say he or she is notable, but the public), I am of the camp that believes that anyone who is distressed by the feeling that somewhere out there is something any Joe Bloggs can spit on go against some of the basic principles of codes of ethics such as found at the ACM: "Avoid harm to others." Any Tom, Dick, or Mary can put up a page, assert that someone they have a grudge against is "notable", and then the subject of the biography is left in the very uncomfortable situation of having to assert they aren't notable. This is counter-intuitive, in a way, and in itself distressing. Basically it's asking human beings to stand up and demote/lower/belittle themselves before their fellow human beings, in order to remain private citizens; it's asking people to humble themselves before everyone just for the right to not have to keep an eye out for those who would spraypaint nastiness aside their name.

And, like Gertrude of Hamlet, if one isn't careful, and one "protests too much" the social dynamic is such that someone, for some reason, might get it in his or her head that staying up on the list will teach the protesting party a lesson. (One gets the feeling that there's a kind of retribution going on when someone is denied removal from such lists. "Serves you right for asserting you're not notable, pal.") Ugh.

And how can a human being just assume the good will of the masses in such cases? History is replete with evidence to the contrary.

That said, I've got the discussion page for your bio on my watchlist, and should it ever come to another vote for deletion, I shall vote delete on the grounds that the subject himself wishes to return to being a private citizen. I don't feel in any way that your article protesting your sudden lift into the limelight makes you somehow more notable -- that's a feedback loop that ought not be encouraged, in my opinion. A slippery, self-referential slope that sets a disturbing precedent.

I don't like to become involved in debates anymore. My fighting days are behind me. But in the case of a human being's right to a peaceful life, I think it's worth speaking out, or at the very least expressing some empathy.

All best. -- QTJ 15:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the expression of sympathy. I do appreciate it -- Seth Finkelstein 06:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De nada. While my days as a crusader are over (too many windmills, too little time), there are still a few things about which I feel strongly -- and a case like this is one. You never asked to be a test case, but it appears that the mobus vulgaris has spoken. Just remember that your protestations are not a lone voice in the wilderness, and maybe it will all just go away. Again, all best. -- QTJ 16:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seth: I felt it best to de-personalize the topic of the bio's discussion page and put a discussion of the general principles at stake on my talk page. (q.v. if you want). As I've said, you're not a "test case" or a "precedent" -- you're a person ... so I took out the names and stuck to the concepts at hand. Take care. -- QTJ 21:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]