User talk:Alex756

Will not be able to attend AMA meeting

Due to the fact that I will be on a business trip then, :I will be unable to attend the meeting. Burgundavia 01:33, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the regrets.

Yes, I'm afraid the chances that I'd ever be able to participate in meetings scheduled at that time are very low. Saturdays are more plausible for me, though I'm not promising anything or asking for it to be changed on my account. I'm not worried about IRC, I'm sure I can figure out the technical aspect, but I'm about at the limit of the time I can afford to commit to Wikipedia matters and don't really need to add more things to suck up my time. With that in mind, I can't imagine why meeting more than once a month at the most would be necessary.

My column about arbitration in The Signpost is intended to be regular (unless for some reason the arbitration process itself becomes less active); I'm glad you like the project. Personally I've determined that since very few people in the formal dispute resolution process are concerned about having someone to represent them, I've moved away from the idea of being an advocate in that sense. Instead, I've tried to monitor the process overall and occasionally provide input, more with the idea that I was trying to represent the community generally. In a way, that could be seen as an extension of AMA work, although I didn't necessarily phrase my participation in those terms. --Michael Snow 17:41, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Michael, your work is to be commendable. This is the spirit that moved me to start the AMA. Thank you.

'Table/Tabling/Tabled' ambiguous

Just pointing out that the word 'tabled' means different things in British vs American usage. This created some difficulty in a high level summit meeting at one point. It can mean "to bring the discussion's focus to" and also the opposite: "to retire a point from discussion"... it can mean both putting onto the table and removing from the table in other words. User:Pedant (having computer issues so I can't log in this week)

Spam filter causing problems

Every once in awhile, the spam filter blacklist starts catching a slew of legitimate websites. Can anyone talk to a developer about this? I can't even tell you what the blocked sites in question are, because it'll block me from saving it to your talk page. 69.243.41.28 02:09, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The page I was having trouble with was pornography addiction. All the links had to be disabled in order to get it to save. I will go back and see if I can save it now. 69.243.41.28 02:31, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Article suggestion

Would you consider writing a short article or a stub entitled "reasonable suspicion"? That would compliment the "probable cause" article to which you contributed

Questions Regarding Accepted Case

Hi Alex,

I could use a bit of advice here. I've just accepted the Robert the Bruce case, which is in arbitration. I have several questions that I'd like to ask about potential irregularities in the process which I feel make the proceedings invalid, but I don't feel comfortable doing so here. Would you mind terribly if I sent an e-mail discussing this in more detail and asking your input? Wally 01:15, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re:

I replied @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#Adding_the_AMA_to_your_welcome_message. Cheers, 21:44, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Great Seal -- Thanks, I made a mistake

Good catch, I made a mistake -- made some edits to Roerich article. See Roerich talk for sources, more details, Sincerely, Caltrop 00:34, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Request Your Input

I have still not received any advice or assistance with this edit & slander war which John & Wik began last April.

Because of the racist tone, and exclusion of facts, and misrepresentation of facts which have been introduced into the articles while under their control; both NPOV and Accuracy Dispute Notices should have been added to these articles last May.

I believe these notices should now be added.

Further, because John_Kenney & Wik have nil good faith, and because I have already spent hundreds of hours going over & over this same matter with them while they perform mindless reverts to enforce their personal POV.; I have no interest left in having more of my time wasted on the Wikipedia community-- I simply object to it publishing hate pages & denial that people are suffering human rights abuses and mass murders.--Daeron 13:19, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Homophobia

Can you help mediate a NPOV Dispute on Homophobia. Thanks. Apollomelos 09:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And one more thing. I am fully against user:Ed_Poor entering the dispute as a "mediator". His comments left on the Federal_Marriage_Amendment's talk page (archive one) entitled "Gay rights POV" reads:

• I suspect someone placed this wording in there, deliberately. My 30 years' experience of talking with gays taught me the value of loaded and tricky language. Why, they're worse than communists!!

I believe that statement disqualifies him from any neutrality on gay-related disputes. Apollomelos 09:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia strive to be inclusive or exclusive?

Would you please read the comments on this talk page. It may seem like 12 words aren't a big deal, but how the issue was handled strikes at the heart of the community. I do not accept the notion that newbies should be cowed before the exalted ranks of the experienced. When it comes to writing encyclopedia entries, that worthless newbie may be a Nobel prize recipient. Experience at wiki does not translate to superior knowledge, experience or ability at anything except wiki usage.

When I first started editing articles, I found the system to be murky at best. Heck, even the community's usage of the word "vote" is confusing. There is no place to check off a box. There is no tabulation of Yeas and Nays. When wikipedia uses the word "vote" it means "take a position and explain it" which is more akin to a debate than a vote.

Given featured article's prominence on the main page, I figured the "featured articles candidates" page is high-traffic. I know it was one of the first pages I came across when I was trying to figure out what wikipedia was all about. So I decided to edit it with 12 words that, had they been there when I first came across the page, I would have found immensely helpful.

The reaction has not been heartening. One admin said the idea of linking to a more complete set of rules was garbage and then editing his response to make sure everyone knew he was speaking from the authority of the entire community. Another admin said, essentially, "Newbies aren't welcome 'round these parts."

Without a single positive response, I would like to know if I'm wrong. Is my vision of inclusiveness not an ideal shared by the community? Am I alone here? I'm not asking for your help as an advocate, I'm asking for a reality check.

Thank you. Pencil Pusher 00:15, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

AMA Meeting availability

I just realized that I won't be able to make it to today's AMA meeting. Sorry. Metasquares 13:26, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

America's Army

Hello, I'd like to ask you if you could help us solve the big edit dispute in the America's Army-article. There are currently two different versions and neither side did much to solve the dispute. If you don't have time, please tell me, because the number of edits is overwhelming (over hundred in the last few days) and a quick cool down is needed I think. Discussion hasn't achieved much so far, and a user adviced me to try this mediation service. To address the other site of the dispute, you should talk to User:Ele9699.NightBeAsT 19:28, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The two confronting versions are [1] and [2].NightBeAsT 19:48, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay thanks anyay. I'll soon try the other steps of dispute resolution starting with the conduction of a survey and most likely leading to an arbitrary committee because he won't tolerate it when "his" edits are removed. LOL he's now trying to punish me when I do by edit outbursts that fill the article with even more irrelevant information. At any rate I won't give in unless he can pursuade me with arguments... it will take a lot of time but I've spent almost half a year on this and to have this progress saved, I'll certainly invest one or more years if necessary. I'm almost as stubborn as him :)NightBeAsT 17:29, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

AMA

Just so you know, I'm no longer interested in being an member's advocate. Good luck to you and the Association though!

-Αλεξ Σ 17:14, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Have a look

Have a look @ . I request you join in @ and/or have a chat w User:Snowspinner. Thanks, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 12:07, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Our meetings

Primarily, hello hello.

Secondarly, I removed Alex S from the member list, seeing as he was still there, as per his above request. I hope that's all right?

Tertiarily, I hope you contribute to this Office of Members' Investigations thing, as I'd be interested to hear your viewpoint.

Quaternarily, I believe we should continue with the IRC meetings we'd been having, as especially towards the latter ones they'd become very productive. Issues that specifically need to be addressed are guidelines for the organization and Keith Tyler's perhaps shrill but nonetheless justified criticism about RfAs going unanswered — perhaps an AMA "cleaning crew" should be appointed to deal with this, or perhaps a Deputy Coordinator specifically responsible to keeping these requests answered in a short timeframe?

Quinternarily, Sam posted a query for you on the Coordinator's talk page which ought to be addressed.

Look forward to hearing from you!

Wally 04:08, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I haven't heard from you. Everything okay, you still around? Wally 03:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AMI

The AMI is User:Snowspinner, you probably should ask him, IMO he is mirroring the AMA or trying to make us the defense, and him the prosecution. As far as a meeting, schedule a time (or perferably a couple ;) conveniant to you, and let me know. I'll probably be able to make it. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 00:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An unrelated matter

Can you please look into this, and if nothing else at least give me some advice? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 00:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Responding to your points and query

As I originally wrote on my page regarding trolls those who enable them, the sole necessary and sufficient condition for any editor here to avoid being labeled a troll is not being a troll. But for those who chose to behave badly at wikipedia, there is an overriding public interest in identifying and dealing with them justly. In so doing I, and any other editor who chafes at trollish behavior, is likely to run afoul of those who protect or excuse trolls, - the troll enablers. QED. If you were serious about genuinely helping the morally challenged behave responsibly you would not excuse or protect the trollish.

That being said, you were right to point out that Sam is entitled to his opinion. But you fail to note that Sam was not entitled to share it with me in the manner that he did, - misusing a wikipedia system. My airing of Sam's email and subsequent bad behavior is not to discredit him, - Sam doesn't need my assistance in that. Nor is it retaliation, - Sam's misbehavior is already self limiting. It's that I'm not morally or ethically suited to enabling trolls by overlooking their misdeeds. My motive here is to educate Sam on the benefits of moral behavior, and if he feels shame for his misdeeds, then that's a good start. And whatever shame is felt is well deserved looking at the long record morally bereft stunts and cynical policy manipulations memorialized on my talk page and elsewhere. Reading that history I link to there, you'll see that I have given Sam many opportunities to do the right thing and apologize, and Sam has squandered every one of them, the latest of which was just yesterday. Whatever public discomfort Sam now experiences is the direct result of his own behavior, no one elses'. He's passed up every chance given him to put this behind him and has left me only this and one other venue to seek an apology.

Of course you're free to respond in whatever way satisfies you when you receive your own insulting email from an editor here or have patently dishonest, frivolous claims filed against you. My modest effort at reform here is far gentler than the other option available to me, and gives Sam far more chances to come clean than the other more formal form of recourse. Whether it is more effective we will have to wait and see. So far it seems to have helped more than hurt. Keep in mind whether a miscreant actually reforms or squanders the opportunities given them is totally up to the miscreant. Whether we have a recidivist Sam Spade or a reformed Sam Spade is only up to Sam Spade.

On your specific points and question... The matter of jurisdiction in a email copyright infringement claim is far from clear. Sam sent his email using a wikipedia system ("E-mail This User") based in the US. The recipent, me, is in California. Around the time the email was sent he was claiming elsewhere on wikipedia that he was located in Ohio (now he says Germany). During discovery I'd be entitled to to determine his exact physical location at the time of the email through his ISP's or webmail provider's records.

But all this is moot because copyright infringement protecting Sam's pissy missive is a nonstarter:

1. My displaying of Sam's email is covered by the fair use doctrine.
2. The courts are generally not bending over backwards in their enforcing of unregistered copyrights.
3. Droits d'auteur applies artist's works. Now granted your opinion of Sam's literary prowess is likely different than mine, but claiming droits d'auteur applies is beyond a stretch, but surreal. Sam's email is notable only in that it's utterly devoid of value. And in more ways than just the obvious. It has no commercial value and likely never will, unless Sam ends up on the news sometime soon. It lacks literary value, being wholly unoriginal. It's only value is likely therapeutic and pedagogical - for reforming Sam and educating others.

And there is no expectation to privacy when sending unsolicitted emails.--FeloniousMonk 23:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know using expletives is not against the law, nor is it morally reprehensible IMHO. Certainly it may not be the nicest thing Sam has said, but under fundamental principles of free expression he is entitled to his opinion and he did it in a relatively private way not by broadcasting it by posting it on Wikipedia talk pages. The question is not is this copyright infringement, but is accusing him of doing something wrong, is THAT libel? I think this is a tempest in a teapot, but to start publishing someone's email in an effort to discredit them seems that it might be considered retaliation, or what might be called "false light". As Sam is in a strict "droit d'auteur" jurisdiction his claim to copyright is probably much stronger than under US law. Queare: if he does not want his words published he is entitled to his privacy, no? Also please note that the issue of copyright infringement and damages are two separate things. In most jurisdictions you can obtain nominal damages and an injunction even if there is no economic damage. Please note that this is not a "legal opinion" it is just a thought. — © Alex756 21:01, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I said below, the sole necessary and sufficient condition for any editor here to avoid being labeled a miscreant or troll is not being a miscreant or troll. But for those who chose to behave badly at wikipedia, there is an overriding public interest in identifying and dealing with them justly. In so doing I, and any other editor who chafes at trollish behavior, is likely to run afoul of those with those who protect or excuse trolls, the troll enablers. QED. If you were serious about genuinely helping the morally challenged behave responsibly you would not excuse or protect the trollish.

Sam is entitled to his opinion, you are right. But Sam was not entitled to share it with me in the manner that he did, - misusing a wikipedia system. I'm airing Sam's email and subsequent bad behavior not to discredit him, - Sam doesn't need my assistance in that. Nor is it retaliation, - Sam's misbehavior is already self limiting. It's that I'm not morally or ethically suited to enabling trolls by overlooking their misdeeds. My motive here is to educate Sam on the benefits of moral behavior, and if he feels shame for his misdeeds, then that's a good start. And whatever shame is felt is well deserved looking at the long record morally bereft stunts and cynical policy manipulations memorialized here and elsewhere. Reading that history linked to above, you'll see that I have given Sam many opportunities to do the right thing and apologize, and Sam has squandered every one of them. The latest of which was just yesterday as seen below. Whatever public discomfort Sam experiences now is the direct result of his own behavior, no one elses. He's passed up every chance given him to put this behind him and has left me only this and one other venue to seek an apology.

Of course you're free to respond in whatever way satisfies you when you receive your own insulting email an editor or have patently dishonest, frivolous claims filed against you. My modest effort at reform here is far gentler than the other option available to me, and gives Sam far more chances to come clean than the other more formal form of recourse. Whether it is more effective we will have to wait and see. So far it seems to have helped more than hurt. Keep in mind whether a miscreant actually reforms or squanders the opportunities given them is totally up to the miscreant. Whether we have a recidivist Sam Spade or a reformed Sam Spade is only up to Sam Spade.--FeloniousMonk 21:58, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On your specific points and question... The matter of jurisdiction in a email copyright infringement claim is far from clear. Sam sent his email using a wikipedia system ("E-mail This User") based in the US. The recipent, me, is in California. Around the time the email was sent he was claiming elsewhere on wikipedia that he was located in Ohio (now he says Germany). During discovery I'd be entitled to to determine his exact physical location at the time of the email through his ISP's or webmail provider's records.

But all this is moot because copyright infringement protecting Sam's pissy missive is a nonstarter:

1. My displaying of Sam's email is covered by the fair use doctrine.
2. The courts are generally not bending over backwards in their enforcing of unregistered copyrights.
3. Droits d'auteur applies artist's works. Now granted your opinion of Sam's literary prowess is likely different than mine, but claiming droits d'auteur applies is beyond a stretch, but surreal. Sam's email is notable only in that it's utterly devoid of value. And in more ways than just the obvious. It has no commercial value and likely never will, unless Sam ends up on the news sometime soon. It lacks literary value, being wholly unoriginal. It's only value is likely therapeutic and pedagogical - for reforming Sam and educating others.

And there is no expectation of privacy when sending unsolicitted emails. --FeloniousMonk 23:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Even if there is no "expectation of privacy" that does not IN ANY WAY give rise to a "right of publication". "Droit d'auteur" does not protect what others think of is one's work, besides economic authorship entitlements it protects one's "moral rights" which include the right of attribution, it is a right to be associated with a work. Even if that work has minimal content that can be copied it is the right to be associated with the actual text; this, if you are interested, is one of the several reasons why the civilian/continental conception of "droit d'auteur" is not the same as the so-called "common law" conception of copyright that has such a strong stress on purely economic consequences of copying (except in regards to the US Visual Artists Rights Act). Regarding jurisdiction: because the author is a German resident and the work was not "published" by him (remember publication has a technical meaning under the law) I doubt that any court in any Berne jurisdiction would hold that he would be forced to chose the law of the country of the infringer; it is the domicile of the author at time time of creation, not the location that is the basis for protection under Berne, remember the right arises upon fixation but it is protected by registration according to the national regime of the author. Thus, the bare assertion that US copyright law controls because the computers rest in the U.S. is, in my opinion, ludicrous, if not frivilous (and thus perhaps sanctionable!). Two wrongs do not make a right. Anyway, the above response shows that the responder is not contesting the issue raised on personality rights (not the same as privacy rights my children) and this is important because it shows that sometimes the one who points the finger is the one who is causing damage way in excess of the original wrong. Bravo for recognizing this if only implicitly or by failure to contest the issue raised in prior entry in this record made by yours truly, — © Alex756 05:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your points about copyright made above may all be quite valid , but Sam has already ceded his rights over his BS billet doux, see below. That my handling of it or of his behavior is wrong or is out of proportion to Sam's original offense is a point I strongly disagree with you on. That I have overreacted is merely your opinion, and of course that of Sam and a few of the ethically impaired bent on enabling his morally bereft stunts and cynical policy manipulations. It is far from certain or fact that my method for handling this has been wrong in any way. Is there a cost in publicly confronting a troll's hypocritical behavior by reminding him of his own bad acts and unpaid moral debts? Clearly there is. But what is the cost of ignoring the misdeeds of trolls? Indeed, what is the cost of pro-actively enabling them? You may as well write them a blank check to continue misbehaving here. Because trolls are only able to get away with stunts like Sam's to the degree they are tolerated, much less actively supported.

The record on my handling of this matter preserved in the links above shows that I've given Sam far more opportunities to do the right thing and apologize than he deserves. That Sam chooses to squander every opportunity is, to his shame, completely his choice. If Sam didn't want to be responsible for his trollish email he shouldn't have sent it, - it's as simple as that. And as the victim of Sam's trollish misdeed, it is for me to judge how to respond. And in the matter of seeking redress the only meaningful measure of whether your response is sufficient, appropriate and balanced is your own. Reading down the list of evidence linked to above showing Sam behaving badly beyond his pissy epistle, I'm comfortable that I've responded in a reasonable and balanced manner and am on solid ethical ground.

Please don't read too much into any failure to contest any issue you raise; what you assume to be a concession was a gentle commentary on the lack of merit of the issue as I see it.

But what is troubling me here now is not just that Sam, whose extensive problems with behaving ethically are a matter of record, is a member of the Association of Members' Advocates, but that the coordinator of the AMA, you, would see fit to finger-wag at one of Sam's victims who is seeking a gentler form of recourse than arbitration from Sam's trollish behavior. Sam has only gotten away with stunts like this email, his mendacious and frivolous copyvio claim (which was tantamount to a SLAPP), and deleting others comments 18 times from the last arbcom election because he is tolerated and supported by others; others who putatively have a moral character and act ethically. Others, like you here. Which prompts a question that has been burning in the back of my mind of late which is exactly how does one come to find themselves speaking up for someone with a shabby record of circumventing policies and against someone who has only sought redress within the policies for being so aggrieved? It would seem to me that to find oneself in that predicament they'd either must not be fully aware of all the bad behavior that has transpired from that editor, meaning they're clueless. Or they choose to turn a blind eye to the troll's history of misdeeds, meaning they're choosing to protect and enable someone who chronically misuses and games the system to violate the spirit and letter of the policies. In other words, they're biased. In either case the unfortunate person finds themselves playing the role of troll enabler, either witlessly or by design. And either position is ethically compromised, with the former less so than the latter.

I'll note that I feel neither case applies to you here, as being the coordinator of the Association of Member's Advocates and Sam being one of your subordinates, you likely look upon this as part of your job- speaking up for a member of your team. That said, I've enjoyed our conversation such as it has been. I'm sorry we don't see eye-to-eye on the issues here; it's possible we never will. Nevertheless, good luck with your client and subordinate. Hopefully Sam simply just does the right thing and leaves an earnest apology that does not include untruths or insults, and I can take then down his email and put this matter to rest. It sounds so simple, doesn't it... --FeloniousMonk 08:28, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He is right that I have given him permission to display my email. I did this at the strong advice of User:Kim Bruning, an admin who has previously found cause to complain about him to the site owner (Jimbo Wales) and had a failed mediation attempt with him. The intent of such permission being that less time might be wasted and less disruption occur. I know I asked you to look into the matter, and I am very greatful that you have done so, your insight into the matter and the quality of your advice are profound. At this point however, I think it best to simply let the matter go, and allow him his plaything. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 11:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since Sam has chosen to bring it up, the text of Kim's attempt at interesting Jimbo in my actions is found here. You'll note that Jimbo here deleted Kim's entire discussion, describing it as "a huge meta-debate which managed in large part to avoid discussing any actual particulars of anything at all" and advised Kim and myself to "chill." Hardly an indictment of me or a validation of Kim's initial concern. I'd like know where Sam is getting his information on the state of my mediation with Kim, I'm not aware of it being public knowledge. Apparently Kim has disclosed this to Sam. Another admin has noted that Kim's actions in regard to Sam have been less than those of a neutral, good-faith mediator.--FeloniousMonk 14:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I find cause to metion that while I don't feel a need to press the issue of the email, FM's interactions w the wikipedia are under a microscope and ought to be, with the concern that he might be providing more disruption than benefit. If that is not the case, his time would be well served in editing rather than hasseling and attempting to intimidate others. He, and not I, can provide the best evidence of his conduct to signifigant others. Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 21:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's pretty sad considering you Sam are the one who sent the vulgar email that's prompted my efforts to get you to behave responsibly by apologizing for your bad acts that you're now decrying. It is to your continuing shame that you continue to refuse to accept responsibility for what you've done and insist on hypocritically attempting to portray me and others as the trolls, when it was your misbehavior that is the cause of your troubles. Why do you insist on digging your hole deeper? As I've said before here, at my talk page, and in innumerable other places at wikipedia the sole necessary and sufficient condition for you to avoid being labeled a troll is not being a troll. And the sole necessary and sufficient condition for you to cease being pilloried for your own bad acts is for you to attone for them and to cease acting hypocritically. --FeloniousMonk 22:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AMA Meeting?

Hey Alex, new to AMA but in a case already and had some contacts on other requests. Any plans on calling another IRC meeting soon? Would be interested in attending. --Wgfinley 21:23, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I second the above, and replied @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#My_response. Cheers, Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 11:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

People seem interested in meeting again, would you like to set a time, or are you too busy? We could always have an informal one w/o you, if you can't attend. let us know, and schedule one if you like, when you like. Cheers, Sam Spade 22:46, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Req. for your work on Sony v Universal

I think Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios could make a great featured article. It doesn't quite meet the requirements yet, but it could with a little work. In light of the debates and cases about digital piracy and the obligations of hardware/software creators, the affirmation/modification/elimination of the Sony precedent is a key issue for the future of information technology.

Since you've worked on the article in the past, feel free to take another look to bring it "up to code" for a nomination. Feco 21:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)