User talk:Jayen466/Archives/2016/May

Arbitration evidence over length limits
The Arbitration Committee has asked that evidence presentations at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence be kept to around 500 words and 50 diffs. Your presentation is around 791 words. Please edit your section to focus on the most relevant evidence. If you wish to submit over-length evidence, you must first obtain the agreement of the arbitrators by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 19:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Kevin, I've shortened it. Should be fine now. Cheers, --Andreas JN 466 15:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * And you. --Andreas JN 466 21:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Infoboxes and Wikidata
Andreas, I've seen you discuss Wikidata and accuracy in a few places. I thought this example of what can happen might interest you. (Not expecting you to comment; just want to make sure you see it.)

In brief, because of a change made to Wikidata, Night was classified in its infobox as an "autobiographical novel." A few RS have called it that, but it's a sensitive issue because Holocaust deniers refer to it as fiction (e.g. see this edit), so it angers Wiesel when people call it a novel. He calls it his "deposition." But it's not a memoir either, because it's clear that some of it is fictionalized. For that reason, over the years, the infobox has mostly said "autobiography, memoir, novel" (or a similar combination) or left the genre parameter empty.

Then along came Wikidata. Someone there decided it was a novel based on text from the Italian Wikipedia, and that overrode the local decision here. SarahSV (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Interesting. --Andreas JN 466 04:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikicup report
Aye, going to be a bit. Per discussion with... I think Godot? ... after the last Wikicup report, it can be divided in half if it's too long. The top 29 out of 32 contestants promoted had content that can be turned into images (Good article reviews are a little too distant from the subject being pictured for my taste), but the number of options decreases rapidly near the end, so we may only get to 20 or so. This has likely been the least-competitive Wikicup ever; only one person who actually scored points didn't make Round 3. No matter, though. There's still a lot of good content. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. Andreas JN 466 22:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We're all learning that the big push has to come at the end... keeping powder dry and all...  Montanabw (talk)  01:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Signpost- Dravecky
The link to the obit is flagged by Firefox as unsafe. Dunno what's to be done about that. Anmccaff (talk) 03:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems the target site does not support https. It can't be helped. Andreas JN 466 03:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Befreit
re (what I read in the Signpost): In an amendment to the Infoboxes arbitration case announced on 21 April, the arbitration committee rescinded three remedies applied to, who is "cautioned that the topic of infoboxes remains contentious under some circumstances and that he should edit carefully in this area."

I miss GFHandel who had enough of the discussions (see Bach) and Wikipedia in March 2013. - The case was requested because too many infoboxes were reverted, DYK? Would have been nice if the reverters had also been cautioned then. - I archived the whole thing in 2015, "pride and prejudice II". Latest comment: Befreit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts
I think that the most depressing aspect of the Gamaliel ArbCom case (among many) is that a number of people whom I generally esteem as sensible and grounded are posting what amounts to poorly-informed conspiracism. Actually, let's discuss this off-wiki so we can present a unified front before I comment further. :P MastCell Talk 23:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's the one aspect of the case that has surprised me as well. --Andreas JN 466 23:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe what I said was - there is a whole lot of history there.--v/r - TP 01:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What history? Do you mean that because some people have used email to coordinate their editing inappropriately, that any sort of off-wiki communication is therefore inherently suspect and disreputable? I expect that kind of lazy thinking from the vast majority of our remaining "community", but not from you. MastCell Talk 15:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

wikipedia journalism
I wonder if it might be possible, if as you suggested the Signpost might be moved off wikipedia's site, if it might, maybe, be possible to set up a bot delivery of a similar journalistic view of wikipedia perhaps hosted on some other web site. I think it might be possible, maybe, to allow addresses with a certain string in their address, which might only be used for such weekly news coverage, to maybe get through the bot blocking other addresses. Personally, I hope that it doesn't come to that, but, under the circumstances, it might even be something that a few senior editors, admins, etc., might think worth giving a try at least. John Carter (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Shhh ... you mustn't call it "journalism". As far as I'm concerned, it's really up to the community to decide what they'd prefer. I thought by and large people appreciated having the Signpost on-wiki, but if I'm wrong, I'll be the last one to complain about not being able to write the sorts of stories we have been writing on-wiki. --Andreas JN 466 00:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The signpost is welcome on-wiki. The "above policy" behaviors are not.  You can have one without the other.--v/r - TP 01:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, TParis, just to clarify: do you have more general problems with the Signpost, apart from the Trump April Fools' Joke and the way the resulting dispute was handled? Any particular issues you've observed over the past half year or so? --Andreas JN 466 01:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. Had the recent statements by you and others associated with the signpost, your PP especially, not been said then we wouldn't have this issue.  Which is why I'm shocked that one of your editors is playing the martyr.  This issue stems from a 2-step failure of the signpost for which the editors & staff have doubled down on.  Gamaliel using the signpost to further a content dispute he was a part of isn't "journalistic" - it's petty and personal.  Combined with Montanaw's freedom of speech statement, Tony1's martyr comment, and your 'application of policy' statement have escalated this.  Instead of 'oops, that was a bit of mistaken judgement', the signpost has tried to assert independence.  When the independence was shot down, then John Carter comes around with "we're not welcome here."  You are welcome here.  The signpost has been helpful.  We like the signpost, we just don't like what the signpost recently has done.  It looks like a runaway editorial board.  Come back into harmony with the community if your purpose is to provide coverage of Wikipedia.  But if your purpose is to grow and expand beyond Wikipedia, then feel free to find a new home and we'll find someone else to continue the ENWP signpost.--v/r - TP 02:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I certainly wouldn't want to create the appearance that I thought the Trump dispute was well handled by Signpost contributors. :) As for the "application of policy" effort, I simply don't like the idea that anyone can remove any part of a Signpost report, ostensibly on BLP grounds, and that that change would then have to stand more or less until the article is archived and superseded by the next Signpost issue, simply because the editor in question uttered the magic word "BLP". Maybe I'm unduly worried about this – we haven't actually had complaints of this kind to date, apart from the Trump debacle – but it doesn't leave with me with a good feeling, given evidence that some people's personal dislike for Gamaliel is getting mixed up with discussion of Signpost issues. Think also of cases like Arnnon Geshuri: BLP policy could easily be subverted to suppress wholly proper reporting. --Andreas JN 466 02:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The "BLP" trump card, I realize the pun, has been complained about before. We all deal with it.  We deal with it so much, there is an essay about your exact feelings (WP:CRYBLP).  It's a fact we all deal with because protecting living people and protecting the integrity of this project is more important than the convenience.  That applies everywhere.--v/r - TP 04:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'm familiar with the essay. As it happens, it comments on the relationship between actual harm and the validity of a BLP argument: "The more tenuous and disputed the actual harm should be, the less weight a BLP argument holds." I still look forward to anyone convincing me that a Signpost April Fools' article read by a few hundred Wikipedia contributors and clearly marked as humour at the top of the page harmed American billionaire presidential candidate Donald Trump, when the whole small hands discussion was all over the American mass media. But never mind. I am glad to hear that you find the Signpost useful in general. --Andreas JN 466 04:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what bothers me about the case as well. WP:BLP is, at bottom, about preventing harm. There's a huge disconnect here between the harm caused (zero) and the amount of energy expended on prosecuting the "violation". It's like taking a speeding ticket all the way to the Supreme Court (and speeding through the streets of D.C. to prosecute it), while declining to take seriously a daily litany of much more serious drunk-driving accidents. Thinking critically, it's obvious that the "BLP" issue here is a fig leaf for something else, something deeper and less respectable&mdash;in my view, a combination of personal animosity toward Gamaliel for his role in GamerGate and on US political articles, resentment of the "special privileges" (ha!) enjoyed by the Signpost, and free-floating venom and bile toward ArbCom and our existing power structures. (I think there is value in clarifying the relationship of the Signpost to Wikipedia in general, but this case is not the venue to have a serious discussion about that). MastCell Talk 15:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree (even as I don't ever want the Signpost to publish a piece like that again, and am sorry for the mess our bad judgment caused). Andreas JN 466 17:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The only thing I can think of to disagree with, in a sense, is the belief that this case isn't the right one to address the matter of the "Signpost". This is the incident that arose, much as I dislike it myself, and responding to problems like that when they appear seems to me to make sense. Granted, though, I wish it were some other type of circumstance which led to the discussion. John Carter (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that this might be thread you mentioned elsewhere in which you criticized me. Actually, I don't see any criticism of me. One thing I do think, after a few more days, might be useful is maybe if we, somehow, could create a formally off-wiki but still maybe sorta on-wiki (in a way) other site (if WMF watchpages and alerts could integrate it, users only edit under their WMF username, etc.), maybe like at wikia, which might be able to host not only the Signpost as it is currently configured, but also what might be something along the lines of blog articles by individual editors on topics of broader interest, or an occasional point/counterpoint or roundtable discussion from editors of topics of interest to them which could be run in the Signpost. The Signpost used to have a point/counter-point column by Science Apologist and someone whose name I have forgotten along the lines of the latter.
 * It might also maybe be a place for others to vent or ask for help regarding one or more other editors in a page or space which might not be as visible to the person with whom they are having problems, but maybe to other wikipedia editors, like maybe a more private version of the Tearoom to discuss problematic editors. It seems to me personally that, although I agree that policies that apply to all content should apply to the Signpost, there could be, in the eyes of some anyway, a feeling that if full "independence" of the Signpost were sacrificed, some sort of slippery-slope might be started in which, for instance, the Signpost might feel an obligation to promote a new computer app generated by WMF which doesn't have much support in the community. That, actually, doesn't strike me as being at least theoretically that unreasonable.
 * I guess I should point out that some of the reasons which caused me to do so are discussions elsewhere about what to do with pages of dubious notability in draft space, a comment by about how to keep academics, which called to mind old conversations with  regarding dubiously notable but popular fringey New Age type material, and, finally, seeing for the first time a wiki devoted to the Children of God at http://www.xfamily.org/index.php/Main_Page which seems to cover several people and topics we don't yet, although, honestly, as some of them seem to be still living people, I might prefer there being something here which might not be as potentially inflammatory. The page on Karen Zerby (who does have an article here I just saw, oopsies), in particular, at http://www.xfamily.org/index.php/Karen_Zerby seems to me to be one which I might like to see something less, well, um, maybe biased?, coverage about here. Maybe something less dramatic than the page of Merry Berg at https://www.xfamily.org/index.php/Merry_Berg might be preferable too, considering their material on her is the first two returns on her name from Google. And I know the Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia online at http://gameo.org/index.php?title=Welcome_to_GAMEO probably beats us hands down in a lot of content too.
 * If there were any sort of way to try to maybe have some sort of "sort-of-on" wiki location which would maybe have the full official independence I think the Signpost editors want, while, at the same time, keep it still under the same sort of basic wikipedia control, and with the same basic people, that might be one way to deal with the concerns of all sides. So, maybe, finding some way to integrate in some wikia material that meets our standards, or similar material from similar wikis, and also send out some material on academics, or leaders of churches or groups who espouse views which are not frequently even discussed by the academic world, which would be useful for us and readres to have, and might be useful in eventually developing content here in a way. I think there was an old talk with DGG about someone asserting Joseph and Imhotep were the same person here. for instance. I couldn't find any RS material on it in the sources I could find, but it might be that at least a few independent churches hold such beliefs, and having a place where material on such could be gathered and presented by those interested in doing so, like members of churches holding those beliefs, could help us develop content here and also make it easier ultimately. There do seem to me to be a lot of at least theoretical RS's about small groups which few people outside of those groups would have access to, and particularly regarding some of the independent or smaller Christian groups which between them make up a sizable portion of Christianity, this might be one of the few ways to help our editors find such sources. And, maybe, having some sort of WikiProject Interwiki or whatever to help coordinate any such efforts might be required, but it might be beneficial in the long run. John Carter (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * John, perhaps I can help in that respect. What if, we created a wordpress site at a domain that we control.  We could use bootstrap and find a nice newsletter/newspaper style theme.  We could set up an editorial publishisg process in WordPress.  Then, when a newsletter gets published, we could have a bot copy the signpost from the website onto enwiki.  We could create a "nowiki" tag in WordPress that would prevent certain articles and certain content from copyright over.  But each on-wiki newsletter would contain a link to both the on-wiki and the off-wiki version of the newsletter.  Then the mass message bot will notify all users as already happens.  What do you think of that idea?--v/r - TP 16:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You know more about that than I do, but if it would be agreeable to Andreas and the others more centrally involved, I wouldn't in any way object. John Carter (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I just spoke to WMF Labs and they said it would be appropriate to host a project like this on there. If that's something you'd like to do, we could have a URL like https://signpost.wmflabs.org/.  I could help ya'all set it up and tweak WordPress to match your processes.  We could have it up and running maybe by Christmas.--v/r - TP 19:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And I just want to reiterate, I'm not saying you're not welcome on ENWP. But if this is a choice you want to make for your own reasons, I'm happy to help.--v/r - TP 19:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Depending on how the ArbCom rules, and how you and the other editors of the Signpost respond to that ruling, I would myself probably prefer to see the Signpost stay here, unless it expanded to cover other WMF entities or something else which caused its relevance to extend beyond wikipedia. But, I also know that you know a hell of a lot more about the Signpost than I do, and if you and the others think a move is called for, I can do what I can to help. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm going to put a probably unwelcome and possibly minority view here, because I think it might explain some things. Personally, Andreas, I've welcomed your writing critiques of WMF actions on the Signpost. As a rehabilitated news junkie, I have acutely felt the lack of that; the Signpost has a history of being more or less tacitly a WMF mouthpiece and as a result most of it has come off to me as worse than the most lickspittle official campus newspapers put out by the administrations of US colleges. And that in an era when the WMF has socked it to Wikipedia editors repeatedly and egregiously, both through high-handedness and through incompetence. I have seen statements at the Signpost itself that editorship there has traditionally been a stepping stone to employment by the WMF. That's not what the community here needs from an internal newspaper. And that's why I have never subscribed. Your work there has occasionally made me reconsider that decision. But it would take time to overcome my personal low view of the Signpost. It would also take a more responsible record, for example on deadlines. As it is, with few exceptions, I view it as not only an unnecessary extra on Wikipedia, but as a poor example of the newsletter genre. If the editors want the respect accorded journalists, the Signpost needs to entirely stop sucking up to the WMF, and it needs to become less amateurish. Posting the April Fool's Day content late and not taking it down or publishing a retraction immediately April Fool's Day was over was extremely amateurish. And that's aside from the issue of its being on Wikipedia and therefore of course subject to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the editors want it to be a Wikimedia newsletter, it needs to move immediately to Meta - but I believe the WMF blog already fills that need. If the editors want to breach core policies like BLP, it needs to move offsite, joining the many other Wikipedia criticism sites. If either of the latter happen, I'd hope an individual or group stepped in to provide the English Wikipedia with a good newsletter, because I did use to be a news junkie and would like the opportunity to read such. Your work gave me hope the Signpost would become such - for what it's worth. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's a welcome view . There's very little in what you say about the Signpost and its history I would disagree with. One point where I would differ is that I do think the Signpost is a newsletter for the Wikimedia community, rather than just a newsletter for the English Wikipedia (if it were just the latter, we wouldn't be covering Wikimedia board and staff matters in this amount of detail). As for the amateurishness, I'm well aware of it; but for publication for example we're reliant on our publication manager (I don't know how to physically do the publication process), and professional deadlines from half a dozen contributors' day jobs, family commitments etc. often impinge on our ability to meet schedules. Right now, we're particularly short-staffed, as Gamaliel isn't around; I ended up writing half the words in the last Signpost by myself, and I couldn't do it this week. (Hey, if you want to join, you're welcome ...) So I don't know how professional we can become without actually getting paid for the job. And yes, the Trump piece was an entirely avoidable train wreck and bad judgment on multiple levels. Best wishes. --Andreas JN 466 17:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Whithering Wikidata
Hi. I read with great enthusiasm your pieces on Wikidata criticism, and I believe the project should move to a copyleft license, such as CC BY-SA or (preferably) ODbL, like OpenStreetMap. Have there ever been public debates of this kind? I'd love to follow up on this, and if ever the opportunity arises, you can count me as an ally to further protect the content of Wikidata. Cheers, NMaia (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I presume you've seen the ITM draft I have been working on today. The topic was discussed at some length on the Wikimedia-l mailing list around December (I think), and the "Whither Wikidata?" op-ed contained some links to earlier licensing discussions. I'm not aware of any more recent discussions, unfortunately. Thanks for your note, NMaia. If the topic comes up again, I will let you know. --Andreas JN 466 18:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have actually not seen your latest ITM draft, but I will certainly do so, thanks. Perhaps we should organize a group to lobby for this change? Just an idea. We will need to lobby hard for this to succeed, as you know. NMaia (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 May 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Back-and-forth
Hey - I don't want to get into another back-and-forth with someone over that case. It led me to flipping the fuck out a week ago and I just don't want to get that emotionally invested again. So, if you want to talk about it, just swing on by my talk page.--v/r - TP 23:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Cheers. It does seem some soapboxes grew to dizzying heights before and during the ArbCom case ... with the messages shouted from the top of them getting more strident. FWIW, I was never in favour of digging in, nor do I see anyone else on the Signpost team who thinks it was handled well. Andreas JN 466 23:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's true that "many electronic news media pull articles", but I'd submit that they don't do it as soon as a single reader – for whatever reason – decides to say "BLP!" --Andreas JN 466 23:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, but they do pull it when 'the editor' wants to pull it. And on Wikipedia, every single user is 'the editor' with the authority and power to enforce WP:BLP.--v/r - TP 00:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Arbcom report
Heyo. Just letting you know that I'm available to write the upcoming Arbitration Reports again. Got done with important IRL stuff now. GamerPro64 18:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's good to hear. Andreas JN 466 02:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, when is the next issue coming out? I'm unsure how the Signpost's schedule is these days. GamerPro64  23:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We're aiming for next Monday. --Andreas JN 466 09:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * How much longer until the issue drops? GamerPro64  21:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It will be at least another 24 hours. In the meantime, any work you (or anyone) can do on the ITM in-briefs is appreciated. I've been snowed under. Andreas JN 466 16:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Wish you told me earlier. I'm on mobile and on the road right now. GamerPro64 16:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)