User talk:Privmaman

Welcome!

Hi Privmaman! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing!

Please note that Wikipedia is not censored. Your recent edits appear to go against that principle -- cited, public information is appropriate to include in Wikipedia in almost all cases. Jay8g [V•T•E] 22:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! In accordance with the Daniel Anderl Act for Judicial Security and Privacy of 2022 (P.L. 117-263 Sections 5931-5939) the full date of birth of a federal judge is not to be displayed online once that request has been received to the Administrative Office of the U.S Courts (federal agency) from the judge. Regardless of it being displayed publicly before. Additionally, the Wikipedia Foundation Living person policy prohibits personal information from being displayed online, to include date of birth. What personal information was previously public is now not allowed to remain public and thus edits were made to that data point. Privmaman (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your reading of both the statute and the site policy are incorrect. The statute specifically provides at Sec. 5 (c)(1)(C)(i) an exception "if the information is relevant to and displayed as part of a news story, commentary, editorial, or other speech on a matter of public concern", which encompasses Wikipedia as a reporter of matters of public concern. BD2412 T 15:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate how a full date of birth falls with the exception. Privmaman (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The exception is an exception from the restrictions of the statute entirely. The prohibition is against government players, and private entities that are not reporting matters of public concern. This language is not accidental. The statute would be facially unconstitutional without it. BD2412 T 03:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At least the year of birth is a key piece of information about judges, because it determines when they will likely retire. (And as stated above, you're misreading the statute.) I wouldn't entirely rule out removing the day and month if that consensus forms, but the year needs to be kept. Jahaza (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with that, the year of birth would be newsworthy. Privmaman (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop using the false edit summary that these edits are required by WP policy and by federal law. Additionally, don't remove the year of birth from the sidebar, there's no reason to do that. Jahaza (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Privmaman, please stop posting that these edits are required by law as that is not true. Additionally, please leave the year of birth in the infobox when editing. --Jahaza (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412 flagging for you that this continues to be a problem. Jahaza (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Privmaman, these edits are clearly contentious. Please refrain from removing sourced content from articles until we have a consensus that it is appropriate to do so. Any further activity of this kind absent such consensus will result in the removal of your editing privileges in the article namespace. BD2412 T 18:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Privmaman, this issue is now being discussed on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons noticeboard. Jahaza (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is at WP:BLPN § Edit request for BLPs on US federal judge birth dates. — Newslinger talk 07:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the thoughtful discussion on the topic of whether to display the full date of birth for federal judges. Given the concerns expressed, I remain certain that the law, found at P.L. 117-163 Section 5931, knowns as the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Law of 2022, allows for the editing and removal of a judge's full date of birth from online sources predicated by a request from a judge to remove. Additionally, Wikipedia is such a critical resource to edit out this personal information and thus to limit the further sharing of this personal information because it is a starting point for further research. I agree that the encyclopedic value for a full data of birth is low as compared to the security and privacy concerns surrounding the ever increasing possibility for misuse. Many reasonable opinions can differ on this point however consider that judges are civil servants and their date of birth is not relevant to their work of administering the rule of law in the U.S..

With that, is the consensus that displaying only a year of birth settles the issue? Privmaman (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When a consensus has formed on that point, an administrator will formally close the discussion and add a box to the top indicating the outcome. BD2412 T 20:41, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. If you have questions, please contact me or ask at the Arbitration Committee Clerks Noticeboard. Jahaza (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the helpful information on how best to work through a contentious topic. I'm still learning the ropes of the community. I'll make sure to review the noticeboards mentioned. Privmaman (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. — Newslinger talk 07:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]