Email this user

User talk:Jbmurray

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
FACs needing feedback
viewedit
Dark Angel (TV series) Review it now
Yugoslav destroyer Dubrovnik Review it now
Sabre Wulf Review it now
The American Bible Challenge Review it now
Gabriel Pleydell Review it now


Satire[edit]

From the OED:

satire, n. Pronunciation: Brit. /ˈsatʌɪə/ , U.S. /ˈsæˌtaɪ(ə)r/

I. A literary composition, and related senses. 1. a. A poem or (in later use) a novel, film, or other work of art which uses humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize prevailing immorality or foolishness, esp. as a form of social or political commentary. Freq. with on, of, against.Originally distinguished from lampoon in being directed at a fault rather than at a person who has that fault, though there is now considerable overlap between the two terms.

To labour the point... Any halfway-decent reader would recognize that The Lady Catherine de Burgh is an account created for the purposes of satire. It claims to be the voice of an "author, stateswoman, Wikipedian and lady" who "was born 1st January 1910 at Scrotum House, Grosvenor Square, London, the youngest daughter of Phimosis Bonkbuster, 14th Earl of Scrotum (1860–1930) and his wife the former Arabella Wyndham-Berkshire." In short, the tone adopted is of an upper-class woman of leisure from a rather distant age.

As such, the Lady Catherine uses "humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule" to expose what she (or rather, her author) sees as the peccadilloes of Wikipedia and Wikipedians. You may or may not find such humour amusing; you may or may not agree with her critiques. So be it. But the genre in which she is writing (or in which she is written) is quite clear.

In line with this general mission, the Lady wrote a user's guide to the current Arbcom election, in which she comments on the various candidates in the style to which she is accustomed: of Drmies, for instance, "my third husband was short in stature too"; of Keilana, "Obviously she had very sensible parents and I suspect some good breeding"; and so on and so forth.

Along the way, she put in an aside about the current Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, to whom she referred as "that revolting, little Mr Corbyn." This, of course, is precisely the way in which you might expect an aristocratic Englishwoman to regard Mr Corbyn--or indeed, any other leader of the Labour party. It is part and parcel of the style and prejudice of such a person, in line with her comments about husbands, maids, Napoleon Bonaparte, not to mention the candidates themselves.

Again, any halfway-decent reader would recognize this fact. And if they could not, then to be honest the entirety of the Lady Catherine's output must remain utterly unintelligible to them. The author is not claiming (in encyclopedic style) that Corbyn in fact is revolting. He or she is simply claiming that his invention, the Lady Catherine, is precisely the kind of person who would think such a thing... and indeed, that this reveals rather more about the Lady Catherine than it does about Corbyn.

None the less, an administrator who goes by the moniker of Mike V, whose account I scarcely believe to be intended as satire or parody (though I am beginning to have my doubts), decided that this was a violation of Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of Living People. He thus eliminated this reference. I reverted him, pointing out the page's satirical style. He reverted me, and then another editor who made precisely the same point. When I reverted once more, suggesting that the way such things are done on Wikipedia is through discussion, he promptly blocked me.

Now, I hardly find this block to be much of a bother: it's not as though I am editing all that frequently these days. But I find such officious, kneejerk implemention of poorly-understood policy without thought or discussion to be somewhat alarming.

Moreover, just as the Lady Catherine's comments tell us more about her as a literary creation rather than making any claim to the truth of what she says about Corbyn, so Mike V's block tells us more about him than about me. I am surprised to see that a fairly seasoned editor does not have a clue as to how satire works, and thus that this admin, oversighter, and checkuser is also someone who is essentially unable to read with any competence.

(Full disclosure: I am paid to read for a living; I am also what many would regard as a Corbynista; oh, and I come from Manchester.) --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 04:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

A rather concerning misuse of the tools, some would argue...Irondome (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
It's satire. This block is a mistake. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with above that this block was a mistake. This should probably be reviewed at Administrator Noticeboard/Incidents.--MONGO 06:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Not that you want the drama Jbmurray, but this is a terrible block and needed review so I posted to AN/I here.--MONGO 07:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Stunningly misjudged block. No way is this a BLP issue.  pablo 06:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • This is all very unfortunate, but rather proves my strongly held beliefs that Wikipedia is falling under the spell of communist agitators and such like; it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see that funny little man with the unfortunate haircut for North Korea topple poor dear Mr Wales from his throne; he's probably already running fro arbcom in disguise. This is just the thin end of the wedge, I expect that odd American administrator who is "Mrs Pankhurst's" sidekick will turn up next and try to assassinate me like the poor Romanoffs. I thought Communism was illegal in America anyway; why don't they enforce their laws properly - it's all very well singing and saluting their star spangled banner, they need to wave it wack some some of these Bolshies over the head with it. I suggest some sane person in authority releases this poor editor toute de suite! The Lady Catherine de Burgh (talk) 07:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
A serious case of overreaction. I have opened a discussion on the talk page here. I never thought I would be discussing something on the talk page of a subpage of the userpage of a joke account on Wikipedia. I am ashamed of myself. Kingsindian  07:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Stunningly bad block, particularly since it's coming from a cu and election commissioner. Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I have unblocked per the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block review. Both sides could probably have handled this better (edit warring over a satire page?), but the block was clearly way too heavy-handed for what was a joke (even if one would consider it a poor or ill-advised one). Fram (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I realise Argumentum ad Jimbonem is not a great idea, but when Jimbo started to put more pressure on adhering to BLPs back in 2006, one of the examples he gave was "Wikipedia has grown in size to the point that many people who are NOT particularly famous have an article. It is easy to understand that supporters and opponents of George W. Bush will keep an eye on his article and make sure it do" [1] As the official leader of the opposition of a major first world country, and one who has far more problems well documented in the news right now than a bit of light-hearted satire on a joke page, I would say that Corbyn is right up there with Bush in terms of "particularly famous" and hence this whole incident is exactly what BLP was not supposed to be about. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, all. As I've just said over at ANI... Having rather needlessly contributed to such drama, I pledge to write some content today as penance. I have but a couple closing observations: 1) it perhaps bears repeating that the Lady's guide was not "insulting our article subjects." As I explain at some length, any halfway-competent reader would realize immediately that the guide's author (hint: this was not the Lady Catherine de Burgh) if anything meant quite the opposite. 2) Even if it were insulting (and again, it most definitely wasn't), it wouldn't have been defamatory. Some people need to re-read the BLP policy, and the reasons for it, a little more carefully. Of course, it would still have been totally inappropriate in article space; but not for reasons of BLP.

I had thought of adding a few further sections here, on "irony" or "defamation," for instance. But now I am free to write elsewhere on the encyclopedia today, I feel I should do so. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 16:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Ratto-trasfondo.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Ratto-trasfondo.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Patricia Ratto[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

This case shall be suspended from December 22nd, 2015 to January 2nd, 2016.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 20:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Motion

DYK for Cartucho[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Question re: Wiki Ed on meta[edit]

Hi there, Wanted to ping a discussion over at the Wiki Education Foundation Talk page on meta. Hope to hear from you soon! --- Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Cascadia Wikimedians page at English Wikipedia[edit]

Feel free to add Wikipedia:Cascadia Wikimedians User Group to your watchlist to stay updated about CWUG-related activities and events. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Two years ago ...
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Latin American literature
... you were recipient
no. 823 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

In case you're wondering ...[edit]

... why you were pinged, there's a fairly substantial, and very civil, conversation on my talk page about sourcing. It begins here with the original question. In the "Break two" section the issue of historiography and transformative texts has been mentioned, and I believe that's something you could speak to better than I, if you were inclined to chime in. Anyway, just explaining the reason for the ping. Victoria (tk) 23:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Am travelling right now (Milan to Salamanca via Zurich, London, and Madrid). Will take a look when I can. --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 14:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't rush. I can't think why anything on WP could compete with Milan to Salamanca via Zurich, London, and Madrid. Enjoy the trip and thanks for the reply. Victoria (tk) 00:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Assessment for article on Vancouver's Downtown Eastside[edit]

Hi Jon. I've been working on an article that I thought you might be interested in: Downtown Eastside. I've just nominated it for the A-class assessment and I'm hoping to take it through the Featured Article assessment process. If you're interested and have the time to assess it, be bold and edit it, or offer any advice, that would be really appreciated! Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Great job with this article! Have made some minor edits, and added a comment on the talk page. But again, well done! --jbmurray (talkcontribs) 07:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Appreciate your time and thoughts :) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, Jbmurray. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Painter[edit]

Jon, if you've time/inclination: User:The Interior/Lawrence Paul Yuxweluptun. The Interior (Talk) 23:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to Training Modules design conversation[edit]

Hello! We are leaving you this message because you have previously indicated that you interested in helping the Wikimedia Foundation Support & Safety team in developing our training modules this year.

We appreciate all the help and thoughts users like you have offered thus far. We would like to encourage you, if you are interested, to participate in the next step of our development: a community consultation about the design and structure of the modules. Note that we're not yet gathering feedback on the content of the modules - a separate consultation about that will be starting soon.

In this "design" consultation, we're looking for advice on things like the best place to host these modules, the accessibility of content, and other potential design decisions. Please feel free to leave any thoughts you have about these things on the talk page. Thanks! Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins[edit]

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers[edit]

Hi Jbmurray.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Jbmurray. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)