User talk:Jayen466/Archives/2011/June

The Signpost: 30 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Santorum neologism article
I don't know whether I've screwed up the discussion you started. I added an RfC tag, and summarized the issue and signed it for the bot. It was only after I'd done that that someone pointed out my summary was not the same as yours.

I think you have proposed renaming it, but leaving it as a stand-alone article, is that right? I misunderstood you, and thought you were suggesting what I had suggested -- renaming, merging it into a subsection of the controversy article (though radically tightened), then redirecting the new name to that subsection. See RfC here. So now I don't know what to do, and I'm completely fed up about the time this is wasting. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 09:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Discussion here about how to proceed. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 09:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I reverted my edits to the discussion you started. That meant restoring the closure of it by an anon, which I'll leave you to decide whether to leave or revert. And I posted the new RfC separately at the end of the page, so the two discussions are no longer linked. I'm very sorry for misinterpreting what you wrote, and increasing the confusion. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 09:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your time and work on this, Sarah. I did entertain the idea of having a short standalone article, with a title that makes it clear it is about "Dan Savage's campaign", as a compromise. I agree with you though that covering it as part of the controversy article is the better option, and support your proposal. It was my original response as well. -- J N  466  15:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Consensus on dashes
Hi, this is to let everyone who has expressed an interest in the topic that the discussion to arrive at a consensus has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting, with discussion taking place at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/dash_drafting/discussion. Apologies if you have already commented there, or have seen the discussion and chosen not to comment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, will have a look. -- J  N  466  23:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Query
Hi. Did you ever get the context quote you asked for here? I can't find it in the article talk page. My local library has it but it's out until 15th. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC).
 * No, I did not. Cirt shortly after announced that they would stop editing the article. -- J N  466  14:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Length of your statement on Political activism
This communication is made in my capacity as an arbitration clerk. The word count of your statement at the Political activism request for arbitration ran to just short of 3000 words, which is in excess of the 500 word limit. I have therefore removed much of the content of your section, including your responses to everybody except Risker (who I kept at random) and all the content within the hat. To view the content that I removed, see. Of course, you are welcome to re-add any content that I removed if you think it is significant (for the most part, I did not read what I was removing), but please ensure that the length of your statement does not again exceed 500 words by such a wide margin. Thank you. AGK [&bull; ] 11:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayen, you might put most of your statement into a page in your userspace and then link to it from your statement on the case request page. Cla68 (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea, I've done so. User:Jayen466/Political_activism -- J N  466  18:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, and apologies for the overrun. I've transferred the hatted content to a user page, and have restored shortened versions of my responses to Coren and Tony. I hope that will be acceptable; my section is far from the longest now. -- J N  466  18:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 June 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

DYKs
Hi Jayen,

Your response makes a lot of sense, and you've persuaded me on this one. Again I appreciate your taking the time to address my concerns personally. I think the biggest point on which the two "sides" were previously talking past each other here is that we didn't realize that the repeated linking of the Dan Savage article was the primary point of concern rather than the hook articles themselves (which seem largely innocuous). SlimVirgin's initial reasons for their deletion still don't bother me-- that Savage might get free advertising, as this is goes for any hook topic (and generally only results in 1000-3000 hits in any case), nor that we cover one topic multiple times, as this happens daily. So you can see why this raised immediate alarm among some other DYK editors. But I think you raise a legitimate concern that these hooks could be part of the Google Bomb effort by encouraging extra click-throughs via Savage's name, and this I think is something we could safely set as precedent without discouraging further content development. (The rule might be articulated as banning something like "clusters of hooks that link directly to a well-publicized Google Bomb, if it needed to be articulated at all). I've promised to stay out of it there at this point anyway, and so I still will (and try to get better about my Wikibreaking.) But thanks again for your attention to this, and your respectful approach. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much, Khazar. It's been a pleasure talking to you. -- J N  466  18:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 June 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Motives
My motives are not the problem here. I actually know something about the term 'wikibomb', its history, and its use (past and present). It did NOT start with 'santorum', and it's absurd to imply it did by repeating the name and the links all over an essay which is intended to explain what it is, how to avoid doing it inadvertently, and how to recognize when others are doing it. It would also help if you didn't insist on using two different signatures - or are you trying to create your own consensus? Flatterworld (talk) 18:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your contributions to the essay. Please note that I was not referring to your motives in my edit summary. I just did not want to make any judgment in the essay about any editor's motives, but simply describe what happened. If you say, "the use of the Campaign for "santorum" neologism Wikipedia article as part of an SEO and Google bomb campaign", it seems to me you are ascribing a motive, or intentionality, and exclude any more innocent interpretation. I didn't want to do that. Do you see what I mean? Otherwise, your contributions are very welcome; I just disagree with that one point. -- J N  466  18:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. In the discussions on the neologism article, it was stated Wikipedia was the campaign. Wikipedia doesn't have nearly that much power. Also, I didn't want to imply Wikipedia would likely be used in a "stand alone" campaign, as we need to look further afield than what's in one particular article. We don't want to be useful idiots here, which is why I also included "inadvertent." Any time SERPs are "odd", someone's gaming the system. Always. The neologism article was obvious, but sometimes something which appears innocent and harmless in a Wikipedia article may be a part of an SEO attempt - we just need to be aware and a bit skeptical. If a particular phrase or link suddenly appears "all over the place", it's not likely to be a coincidence. Flatterworld (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Jayen: there's an error in your Wikibombing (SEO) essay. "Santorum (neologism)" was already the top Google hist for "Santorum" last year, before the article expansion, etc.    Will Beback    talk    21:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That was not my observation from here. Dan Savage's spreadingsantorum site consistently came up as the top result for me, and its top position has been widely reported in the press. It stayed at the top until late May, when our article displaced it. -- J  N  466  21:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You were checking it before the article expansion? I recall searching on it prior to the recent editing, when it was mentioned on a TV show, and it came up on top. I've edited the essay to reflect that, but if you have a source for it "jumping" to the top as a result of the editing then feel free to use that instead.   Will Beback    talk    21:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * When the discussion on the mailing list started, spreading santorum was still the top result; I recall I checked then. Then our article overtook it, and it's stayed on top ever since. I remarked on it in a post at the time, IIRC. Best, -- J N  466  22:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I found the post: That's the day it took the top spot. Cheers, -- J  N  466  23:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Google results vary from day to day, and unfortunately there's no way of reliably tracking them in retrospect. Maybe that aspect of the essay should focus on what WP editors said rather than on the unknowable vagaries of Google.   Will Beback    talk    23:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Googlebomb question
Per Santorum: Hi Jayen... I wanted you to know my question about the appropriateness of "Googlebomb" in the title, and a possibly more accessible title name for some people was a real and respectful question.I felt I had opened the door for some negative input though, which wasn't my intent. I've withdrawn for now at least from the article and discussion... too convoluted and I seem to have only marginal energy to deal with the contentious environment... Your answer isn't an issue anymore for me at least. I did want to apologize if I had seemed to stir up anything. And if you don't remember it, that's fine too.:o) Best wishes.(olive (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC))

DYK for Rosie Vanier
The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikibombing (SEO)
Wikibombing (SEO), a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikibombing and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Wikibombing (SEO) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Hobit (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Free audio files
Hi, Avicennasis has uploaded five audio files of conversations between Rajneeshpuram mayor Swami Krishna Deva and John Mathis, a mediator with the federal Community Relations Service. In the conversations, Krishna Deva prods Mathis for details about a secret federal investigation. The calls were recorded by the FBI in the autumn of 1984. Feel free to use them in the relevant articles. Regards, Joyson Noel  Holla at me!  04:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation_audio_files_on_Rajneesh_movement
 * Thanks. These audio files come from here:
 * Rajneeshees in Oregon – The Untold Story. Select government documents, along with a 25-year retrospective by Les Zaitz. The Oregonian.
 * We should really upload all the other files hosted there to Commons as well. So far, it looks like only these audios are in Commons. Cheers, -- J N  466  09:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I know. But the rest are all federal government documents. I don't think these can be uploaded at Commons. Which is the appropriate place for them? Joyson Noel  Holla at me!  09:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If they are federal government documents, then Commons is the right place. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing#Works_by_the_US_Government and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-USGov -- US federal government documents are public domain. -- J N  466  10:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I have made a request at Wikisource. See this. Joyson Noel  Holla at me!  10:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to get pulled into that discussion again..
Mostly because I WILL lose my temper, this whole thing is driving me to distraction (and the fact my right knee is about twice it's normal size despite an icepack doesn't help). However, you asked a good question, and as such deserve an answer. Do you remember the Climate Change case, or other such similar cases? I do, and that would be the result if the discussion was open or even shared with the parties. Endless squabbling and bickering and nit-picking. People accuse ArbCom of being an endless debating society already, what do you think we'll get when the parties feel compelled to dispute everything we say or discuss? SirFozzie (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm with you on that, and you probably misunderstood what I was saying (or perhaps you meant to reply to Slim). I know that in cases like CC you wouldn't be able to carry on a conversation with the din of all the parties chipping in. But is there really a need to have a list archive? I've been on mailing lists that did not have an archive, and it works perfectly well. Safeguarding the institutional memory could be done by creating a knowledge database (safely tucked away somewhere, off-wiki). Giving those on whom files are held access to those data would seem appropriate, and easier to manage this way, as things would not be spread out across dozens or hundreds of individual mails. (The description of your knee sounds painful. I hope it gets better.) Cheers, -- J N  466  19:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the knee issue is prepatellar bursitis and will get better. Maybe I mis understood what you typed, where you said: That still leaves the possibility of not archiving the list traffic, but creating a database of the relevant facts, allegations, and evidence, and making that open to the people concerned. If I'm reading that right, you're talking about the people concerned being Arbs, and not the parties of a case? If so, yeah, that's certainly on the table as to a fix (turning off archives). SirFozzie (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (Ouch.) I meant both -- using it as a knowledge base for arbitrators, and giving users the right to request sight of permanently stored information as well. (Ideally, access to that information would be managed by someone else than the committee, let's say a "FOI clerk".) But by permanently stored information I do not mean the minutiae of ongoing cases. I imagine these would not usually be important enough to keep permanently.
 * The way I envisaged this is this: If a case results in information that needs to be permanently held in the knowledge base, as part of the institutional memory, it would be written up and added to the knowledge base after the conclusion of the case. While the case is ongoing, the FOI clerk would have nothing to give to a user who asks to see his file. And if there is nothing about a user that requires permanent keeping at the end of the case, then there still won't be a file on them after the case. Even to someone who feels hard done by in a case, knowing that nothing is permanently held "against" them might actually come as a relief.
 * Of course it would be understandable for users to want to see anything said or "held" about them during a case (heck, I've been there myself). But in practice it would lead to endless requests from users to tweak that material. On balance, a net loss -- for every instance where it would help to correct a material misperception, and prevent a "miscarriage of justice", there would be 50 cases where it would just be wrangling over irrelevancies. That wrangling would be almost as big a drain on the process as letting users in on the committee's conversations themselves.
 * But if an arbitration case, or anything else the committee deals with, results in permanently held information on a user, then they should be able to go to the Foundation's FOI clerk and be given sight of it. If there really is something drastically wrong about them there, they can raise it then, or ask for a statement to be added.
 * Do you think that would work? It would (1) leave you free to deliberate as you do now, (2) provide more transparency to users on whom there is permanently held information in the database, and (3) do away with long-term storage of irrelevant material or gossip on individual users. Cheers, -- J N  466  20:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think A) The people we're trying to placate wouldn't believe that the Committee has nothing on them even if told so (they'd just say "It's being hidden" somewhere else), and B) If the events of the past few days is any indication, we'd be flooded with constant "Just in case" questions, which loop us back to A). So I dunno if it's viable. I used to think the archives were a good idea (provide an institutional memory which was especially useful to me when I was a new arb when I was dealing with stuff the previous Committee had decided), but of course, the theft/leak of the data shows that hte archives could have a downside too. SirFozzie (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I imagine it might actually help to have concise write-ups of things future arbitrators really do need to know, rather than having to search through hundreds of mails in a list archive, such as the ones that have been leaked. Material for permanent keeping would be authored with more thought than an off-hand remark in a post. It would be quicker to review for new arbs.
 * The trust that people really will see all that is held about them could perhaps be built, in part by giving administration of that material to a separate body, rather than the committee, and by prompt handling of requests to see it.
 * The downsides I can see are (1) the additional work that would have to go into authoring these summaries, and (2) that this makes it official that "the Foundation holds files about users". And as you say, people may always suspect that there is another secret file about them somewhere else. All in all, a thorny problem. -- J N  466  21:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Question about your comment re Cirt
Hi Jayen, I'm curious about the comment you made at the talk page of the RfC/U on Cirt, where you reminded editors that the purpose is not to seek sanctions but to discuss things like adults. Given that you said it in the section that I started, I am left wondering whether any of it was directed at me. I agree with what you said, by the way, and my making the suggestions that I made to Cirt was not from the point of view of "defending" against sanctions, but of trying to figure out what the truth is—not easy for editors like me who haven't been following the events as they happened. Did you think that anything I said went against the spirit of discussing things like adults? I'm not at all worried about it, and certainly not taking offense, but I'd just like to understand. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The comment was not directed at you, Tryptofish, but at Macwhiz and another editor who seemed to be under the erroneous impression that the purpose of an RfC/U was to impose sanctions. -- J N  466  22:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)