→Klee Irwin: thank you |
→Civility warning: new section |
||
Line 114: | Line 114: | ||
::I have added additional references directly to the article, from the [[Wall Street Journal]], [[St. Petersburg Times]] and [[Salt Lake Tribune]]. [[User:Lankiveil|Lankiveil]] <sup>([[User talk:Lankiveil|speak to me]])</sup> 11:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC). |
::I have added additional references directly to the article, from the [[Wall Street Journal]], [[St. Petersburg Times]] and [[Salt Lake Tribune]]. [[User:Lankiveil|Lankiveil]] <sup>([[User talk:Lankiveil|speak to me]])</sup> 11:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC). |
||
:::Thank you. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 12:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC) |
:::Thank you. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 12:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC) |
||
== Civility warning == |
|||
Please respect our policies on [[WP:NPA]], [[WP:AGF]] and [[WP:CIV]]. Your recent edits, out of blue accusing another editor (myself) of trolling ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_Woolwich_attack&diff=prev&oldid=556998552], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_Woolwich_attack&diff=prev&oldid=557009785]), and unsubstantiated violations of AGF, are not inline with those policies. Neither is telling editors to stay way from an article ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APiotrus&diff=557010286&oldid=557009656]), which is a [[WP:OWN]] violation. To quote yourself: "You've been around long enough to know how things work here." Please play nice. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</font>]]</sub> 14:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:37, 27 May 2013
Hi there
Saw your questions, and will answer tomorrow; I'm trying to finish up something arbcommy tonight. Risker (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Visibility and corruption re election guides
Jonathan, how do you mean "a few guide writers… get their guides promoted on the arbitration election pages"? And the election pages "elevate the opinions of a select few to higher visibility"? I thought all the individual guides were simply listed on those pages? At least in more recent times. Maybe I don't remember it right. Got a link or two for guidance, please? Bishonen | talk 00:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC).
- Here's an example of how it used to be. After much dickering, I was able to make this edit so that the template now looks like this: Template:ACE2012. Ideally the guides would disappear completely from the template. Campaigning should not be allowed so close to the voting booth, nor should the guides be given such an appearance of officialness. The template appears on all official election pages. Jehochman Talk 12:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Question
This is unrelated to the Eckelberry AFD so I'd like your input. Sometime last week I found myself mired in a talk page dispute between two other individuals, I found that one had a plaintext signature (no links to his user or user talk pages). When I realized this was the case, I requested he add a link. He later removed the thread and continued participating in the discussion, still with no link. I've made another request that he modify his signature again. What would the next course of action be should this second request be ignored?—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- I would just let it slide. He's being non-collegial, but I don't think it is worth pushing the issue while you are already in some sort of disagreement. Jehochman Talk 18:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Ugh.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Arbitration case opened
An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 12, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ21 22:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC) — ΛΧΣ21 22:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
No wayyyyyyy. Oh look I wasn't blocked after all :P
What happened to the good lo' Fish Day spirit? Was that a joke? :P ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Cheers~! Jehochman Talk 11:52, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Same to you! ;-) ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Graphic Designer Barnstar | ||
Cool! I never got much beyond the old DOS menu boxes, and always admired the folks who could actually create artistic work like that. — Ched : ? 15:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC) |
Doh! I don't deserve this. It's copied from The Oatmeal. View source of http://theoatmeal.com. Jehochman Talk 19:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- Meh .. I've wanted to do or say something for a long time. When I first became an admin. I got overly sensitive a few times about a few things you posted. I was defensive of Pedro (he was my RfA nom), and I likely said (or at least thought) a few things I regret. You're a good man, and a good admin. I had a chance to drop something, so I did. Besides, I always enjoyed that ASCII stuff. Just be careful .. the very fact that you know these kinds of things might tend to make you look a bit old these days. :) — Ched : ? 19:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- I got my AARP card a few years back, and yep - I remember the old days. I remember helping my uncle sort punch-cards, and I myself got into the field back in the early-mid 80's. IIRC DOS 3.21 was my first OS. I'm semi-retired now, but do go help a few of my long time clients when the need arises. I probably don't keep up with the current technology as much as I should, but I still enjoy it. (well .. enjoy and Windows 8 might not go into the same sentence). I actually still have a couple clients on dial-up .. uggghh - I do dread those calls. — Ched : ? 20:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Reported haunting of Alcatraz
Hello Jehochman. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Reported haunting of Alcatraz, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article is not substantially the same as the deleted version. A new deletion discussion is required. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
It was stupid of you to remove the edit because the truth cannot be denied even on Wikipedia. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- See also WP:THE TRUTH. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- I see you like to talk Wikipedian, then please see also Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source 76.126.142.59 (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- Really 76? You're going to defend that kind of trolling? Hey, I'd like to see Cla68 back as much as anyone - but those kinds of posts certainly aren't going to help him. — Ched : ? 16:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Ched, trolling is posting off-topic messages. I do not think the post I linked to was off-topic. Really, how long should it take to make a decision on a relatively easy matter, and why not to have the discussions, regarding this case, public? Why not to unblock Cla68's talk page? One more point: you're saying: "but those kinds of posts certainly aren't going to help him." , but could you please explain to me why those kind of posts should have any influence on the ArbCom at all? I mean this post was made by someone on a public talk. What does it have to do with Cla68, or you agree with this " However, there will now be a short delay while I block you indefinitely for having an impermissibly confusing impersonator username.", the comment I also find silly. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- First the "trolling" aspect - all you have to do is look at the username. Newyorkbrad is one of the most respected people here; and you're going to create a name like Ancientyorkbrad? (not you personally). I blocked that name myself on sight. Now, as far as the unblock. Arbcom has made it abundantly clear that the current block is an Arbcom sanctioned WP:OS block. Anyone messes with that, and they loose their admin. tools. Now I haven't talked to Cla68 in several weeks, but I know he is firm in his beliefs and his resolve. He and Arbcom have exchanged several emails, I'm not privy to that information - but I suspect there are issues revolving around what is acceptable to our WP:OUTING policy when the information exists on the Internet and can be linked to. The "Qwickwire" account is an impersonation of a registered user "Gwickwire", which is why that one was blocked. Yes, I do wish Arbcom would communicate more with the community, but I also respect that much of this revolves around another editor whose real life identity is involved. Does that help? Anyway - this isn't my page, and I should likely just let Jehochman handle it as he sees fit. Best to all. — Ched : ? 17:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ched, I was not talking about the user names, used in those posts, I was talking about the content of posts themselves. I agree the user names were tasteless, and it is rather sad that it takes somebody with such user name to say that the ArbCom is a disgrace. I wish a registered Wikipedian said it instead. Still I cannot understand why those posts should have any influence whatsoever on the decision, regarding Cla68. Now, let's be reasonable. Cla68 is a smart person, and I am sure he understands that, if he wants to be allowed to edit Wikipedia, he should never again link to any info, concerning any Wikipedian, which is available somewhere on the NET. So, why Arbcom and Cla68 should agree on what constitutes outing in order for Cla68 to be unblocked? 76.126.142.59 (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- First the "trolling" aspect - all you have to do is look at the username. Newyorkbrad is one of the most respected people here; and you're going to create a name like Ancientyorkbrad? (not you personally). I blocked that name myself on sight. Now, as far as the unblock. Arbcom has made it abundantly clear that the current block is an Arbcom sanctioned WP:OS block. Anyone messes with that, and they loose their admin. tools. Now I haven't talked to Cla68 in several weeks, but I know he is firm in his beliefs and his resolve. He and Arbcom have exchanged several emails, I'm not privy to that information - but I suspect there are issues revolving around what is acceptable to our WP:OUTING policy when the information exists on the Internet and can be linked to. The "Qwickwire" account is an impersonation of a registered user "Gwickwire", which is why that one was blocked. Yes, I do wish Arbcom would communicate more with the community, but I also respect that much of this revolves around another editor whose real life identity is involved. Does that help? Anyway - this isn't my page, and I should likely just let Jehochman handle it as he sees fit. Best to all. — Ched : ? 17:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Ched, trolling is posting off-topic messages. I do not think the post I linked to was off-topic. Really, how long should it take to make a decision on a relatively easy matter, and why not to have the discussions, regarding this case, public? Why not to unblock Cla68's talk page? One more point: you're saying: "but those kinds of posts certainly aren't going to help him." , but could you please explain to me why those kind of posts should have any influence on the ArbCom at all? I mean this post was made by someone on a public talk. What does it have to do with Cla68, or you agree with this " However, there will now be a short delay while I block you indefinitely for having an impermissibly confusing impersonator username.", the comment I also find silly. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- Don't mind me. :-) I find this conversation amusing. Wikipedia isn't for the truth. It's for finding a succint summary of all human knowledge, warts and all. Jehochman Talk 18:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia Meetup NYC this Sunday April 14
Hi Jehochman! You're invited to our next meeting for Wikipedia Meetup NYC on Sunday April 14 -this weekend- at Symposium Greek Restaurant @ 544 W 113th St (in the back room), on the Upper West Side in the Columbia University area.
Please sign up, and add your ideas to the agenda for Sunday. Thanks!
Delivered on behalf of User:Pharos, 18:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
18 USC 2257 compliance
Jehochman, FYI, last year I asked Philippe Beaudette to look into issues around 2257 compliance, and one of the Foundation's legal interns drew up this document in Meta: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Age_Record_Requirement
Note that according to the legislation, every page using such media should itself include an 18 USC 2257 compliance statement, as far as I recall. So it's not just a matter for Commons, but also for any other projects that use media of this type. I'm glad you brought it up. Cheers, Andreas JN466 14:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC) (PS: I accidentally posted this on your Meta talk page when I meant to post it here.)
- At minimum Wikipedia should build a warning template to add to pages about sexually explicit topics to alert editors to the risks they are facing if they use explicit images and don't keep the required records. (The template could link to the page you've identified.) That way individuals can make appropriate decisions for themselves. Secondarily, there should be a procedure to speedily delete any sexually explicit image that appears to be or could be an under age individual.[1] After deletion the uploader would have to generate documentary proof through OTRS to establish that the photo subject was of legal age. I think these two measures would be common sense and uncontroversial. Jehochman Talk 16:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- My time is limited and not sure this is a war I want to get into, but what's the next step? How do we implement law yet minimize censorship?--MONGO 18:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Censorship is the problem when one person says "obscene" and another person says "art" or "educational". That's a judgement call mess. With age, it's really very simple. If the models appear to be <18, it's presumed illegal and gets deleted. If the models are actually >=18, then the uploader can provide documentary proof to OTRS, and the image is restored. If an uploader doesn't want an image to be deleted, they can provide documentary proof at the outset. For starters, go to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#New criteria. Jehochman Talk 18:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- My time is limited and not sure this is a war I want to get into, but what's the next step? How do we implement law yet minimize censorship?--MONGO 18:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
"People keep asking why Wikipedia is such a hostile place for female editors; the excessive and irresponsible uploading of porn is part of it. Jehochman Talk 11:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)": This is the precise point I made on the Gendergap list the other day (as did others): [2] You may find the discussion of interest; it began in April (thread title: "[Gendergap] Topless image retention -don't give up"). The Gendergap list archives are here: [3][4] Thanks for raising these issues on Jimbo's talk page (unfortunately, I can't participate there). Best, Andreas JN466 13:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- The problem with your argument is that wikipedia's defacto workplace analogue is the entire open wep and various bits of the closed web. I'm given to understand that is contains an extensive amount of adult media to the point where what happens on domains under control of the WMF won't make much difference on way or the other.Geni (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
We tried the 18 U.S.C. § 2257 argument before. The problems you hit are that firstly from time to time some court decides it isn't constitutional and secondly it doesn't apply to anything created before July 3, 1995. And yes people did manage to track down material from before that date. There is also the issue of the large number of SuicideGirls pics (SuicideGirls does meet 18 U.S.C. § 2257 requirements). That said it does have the potential to be a useful tool for dealing with the large number of contemporary pics from questionable sources.Geni (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- Legal compliance isn't our thing, and WMF has said this law is not applicable. We just argue on the basis of being decent human beings. If people upload porn, they must plausibly assert that there is a proper Copyright status, the subjects are of age and have consented. That's not too much to ask. Clearly, there are many images on Commons that don't meet that standard, and therefore should not be used on Wikipedia. That's the crux. Jehochman Talk 11:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Klee Irwin
Sorry Jehochman, I have to disagree with you in this instance. There was plainly no consensus to delete there, and there are many sources, most of which do link him to various shady business practices. I also did consider whether this could be a case for WP:BLP1E, but it appears that they've gotten themselves into trouble more than once over the years. A quick search on Factiva turned up a number of older sources for this person that go into actual detail on them and their activities (ie: not just offhand mentions or quotes, although there are hundreds of those too). Of course, a no-consensus close doesn't mean that you can't aggressively edit the article to rebalance it if you feel it is a "hit job". Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC).
- Could you post those links please? Jehochman Talk 09:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have added additional references directly to the article, from the Wall Street Journal, St. Petersburg Times and Salt Lake Tribune. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC).
Civility warning
Please respect our policies on WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:CIV. Your recent edits, out of blue accusing another editor (myself) of trolling ([5], [6]), and unsubstantiated violations of AGF, are not inline with those policies. Neither is telling editors to stay way from an article ([7]), which is a WP:OWN violation. To quote yourself: "You've been around long enough to know how things work here." Please play nice. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)