User talk:Jehochman

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)

All right, thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 13:33, 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)

OK, thanks. You have mail. Bishonen | talk 12:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC).

Understatement of the year. Several hundred per day. Jehochman ^Talk 13:13, 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 am old! And some day I hope you will be too. When I started we had dial up modems where you put the phone handset in a cradle. Our computers didn't have screens; there was a rotating ball head that typed the output on a roll of paper. Jehochman ^Talk 20:05, 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)

The truth cannot be denied even on Wikipedia

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)

• 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)

Censorship really only ought to be a problem about articles, not images. If a provocative image isn't illustrating an article, it should go; doing so isn't censorship, but simply housekeeping. Mangoe (talk) 02:46, 20 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).

Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 12:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Dignified

Jonathan, I think it's more dignified not to remove comments from your page. Just a suggestion. Well, I guess there are exceptions, too. It may be as well that Writ Keeper took care of this IP gem, but that's a different kind of case, y'know? [/me goes off at a tangent.] If I wasn't so dignified, I might send Darwinbish to post her anonymous coward template on that IP. WP:DENY is better, but db don't see it that way. She likes to use her templates. Try saying something bad, and you may be honoured with this one! Bishonen | talk 21:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC).

Bishonen! How are things in Swedeland? Jehochman ^Talk 23:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

If you think that'll get you the Dreaded Insultspout, you're sorely mistaken. Bishonen | talk 00:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC).

I'm merely sore. Middle age is not kind. Jehochman ^Talk 03:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

? :-( [Spryly:] I can't even remember middle age! Bishonen | talk 14:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC).

It's not far from Middle Earth. Jehochman ^Talk 15:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes,but...

we are not permitted to say it!

He is the the most slippery bastard on the face of the earth. His whole statement is a careful piece of spin-doctoring. "I neither condone or condemn....however you ought to condemn the government......" etc etc Amandajm (talk) 14:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I trying that in preview and accidentally hit the save button.[5] Jehochman ^Talk 15:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Gibraltar TFA heads up

Further to your recent discussion with Silverseren and others here, note Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#History_of_Gibraltar. (In the interest of fairness, I'm dropping Silverseren an identical note.) Andreas JN466 17:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you locate or generate a historical count of Gibraltar home page appearances? We need to present something to the people who are pretending that there is no problem. Jehochman ^Talk 10:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

See [6] and [7] Andreas JN466 19:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yesterday we had Hardy Town, Gibraltar on the main page. On June 4, Inundation, Gibraltar. Andreas JN466 19:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

In case you haven't seen it: Is Wikipedia's front page for sale? Andreas JN466 19:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Some background info

Jehochman, regarding your current spat with Prioryman over Gibraltar appearances on the main page, here is some background information. Prioryman has made much of the fact that he founded the Gibraltar WikiProject years before Gibraltarpedia and has said that his present involvement in the topic area is due to the former, not the latter. He has complained that WikiProject Gibraltar has become "collateral damage" in the Gibraltarpedia scandal.

For your info, I established Wikipedia:WikiProject Gibraltar back in 2007 - it has no connection with Gibraltarpedia, is entirely separate from it and has never been the the subject of any controversy whatsoever, yet it has still become collateral damage. Prioryman (talk) 06:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, now this all makes more sense. My condolences on having to deal with this mess. Kaldari (talk) 07:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Now, if Prioryman had been churning out twenty or so Gibraltar DYKs for the past six years, one might sympathise with his argument that his project had been collateral damage. So I thought it would be interesting to see how many Gibraltar DYKs Prioryman had written before Gibraltarpedia. I had a look through the DYKs he lists on his user page. Here is what I believe is a complete, dated list of all DYKs credited to Prioryman that are related to Gibraltar or are otherwise attributable to the Gibraltarpedia project:

List of DYKs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
DYKs that ran on the main page: 6 November 2012 Fuerte de Isla Verde 16 November 2012 King's Chapel, Gibraltar 23 November 2012 Moorish Gibraltar 23 December 2012 Third Siege of Gibraltar 19 January 2013 Abd al-Malik Abd al-Wahid 24 January 2013 Soldier Artificer Company 29 January 2013 Fifth Siege of Gibraltar 4 February 2013 Fourth Siege of Gibraltar 8 February Tourism in Gibraltar 20 February 2013 Royal Fair of Algeciras 23 April 2013 Gibraltar (Wilmington, Delaware) 29 April 2013 Twelfth Siege of Gibraltar 8 May 2013 Neanderthals of Gibraltar 4 June 2013 Inundation, Gibraltar 9 June 2013 Hardy Town, Gibraltar Nominated and approved, expected to run in June: Lines of Contravallation of Gibraltar Fortifications of Gibraltar Nominated and awaiting approval, expected to run in June or July: King's Lines Queen's Lines Prince's Lines[/list]

As far as I can see, not a single one of these DYKs predates October 2012 (the Gibraltarpedia project started producing its first DYKs in July 2012). WikiProject Gibraltar had been in existence for five years by then. In addition, Prioryman seems to have had a very significant involvement in processing Gibraltarpedia DYK nominations after October 2012. A search shows that at the time Roger Bamkin (Victuallers (talk · contribs)), then a paid agent of the government of Gibraltar, was banned from further involvement in Gibraltarpedia DYK nominations, Roger had participated in processing (nominating, reviewing, approving etc.) at least 58 such nominations.

Prioryman announced on Wikipedia that he was going to spend the weekend of 6 and 7 October 2012 in Gibraltar, hoping to meet with Bamkin, Bamkin’s business partner John Cummings, and other Gibraltarpedia participants there. As soon as he returned, he energetically argued that the “backlog” of Gibraltar articles that had accumulated should be put through to the main page, despite the ongoing media controversy. After he returned from his meeting in Gibraltar, Prioryman then became involved in at least 61 Gibraltar/Gibraltarpedia DYK nominations – a total greater than Victuallers'.

I have been unable to find a single case of such DYK involvement predating his visit to Gibraltar.

Several Wikipedians commented on Prioryman's promotion of Gibraltarpedia at various times. Zozo2kx (talk · contribs) for example said on 19 October 2012,

*Comment: While I oppose this motion as a draconian measure that is hardly in the interest of the encyclopedia and because it has already been discussed to a satisfactory result; I have severe reservations about Prioryman (talk · contribs) and his involvement in the issue. The canvassing, badgering and almost constant pushing and lobbying for Gibraltarpedia makes me very uncomfortable with his role in nominating articles, "reviewing" them or finding reviewers from them, and then forcing them down DYK's throat. There's a process here, let it take its course. I have nominations who've been sitting in wait for weeks, they're not controversial, they're not under any "special measures" but they still take time. Just let the bloody process take its course without trying to game it and walk away from the dead carcass. Almost all the newly promoted material had a review from Prioryman, which, in light of his heavy involvement in the issue, should be declared null, IMHO. Yazan (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs), a participant in and supporter of Gibraltarpedia's content generation drive, said,

Two things which are starting to bug me. a] The belief that all Gibraltar DYKs are somehow degrading wikipedia and all contain adverts saying “Come to Gibraltar”. b] All of the canvassing that is going on, especially by you Prioryman. I’m happy to do the odd review but please don’t keep asking me to review and comment on things. Unless you start paying me of course hehe…♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman has also been in regular contact with the Gibraltarpedia people on Wikipedia. For example, he actively mocked Jimmy Wales, who had suggested a complete moratorium on Gibraltar main page appearances (related press articles), in conversations with Victuallers:

Jimbo's comments have descended into idiocity on this issue, frankly, and his interventions have been unhelpful all round. It would be much better if he dedicated himself to schmoozing on the celebrity circuit and let those of us who are actually writing content get on with it. Prioryman (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

By the way, have you seen this? Blundering idiocity seems to be putting it kindly. Fortunately he seems to be mostly irrelevant these days (cf. flagged revisions and the lack thereof). Prioryman (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

(The "this" was linked to Jimbo's call for a complete moratorium). Victuallers replied,

Oh but he does get media attention - I have written as you suggested as I think this may be a good move as we discussd. However its very important not to "shoot from the hip". Victuallers (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman has described his successful nomination of the History of Gibraltar Featured Article for a main page appearance next month as some sort of test case for having another go at getting the Gibraltarpedia restrictions lifted:

I'm planning to run a Gib-related TFA in July; the response to that should hopefully indicate whether the temperature has dropped sufficiently to make a lifting of the restrictions viable. Let's have another chat on this in about six weeks' time. Prioryman (talk) 06:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you think this evidence supports Prioryman's assertion that his recent and present drive to put Gibraltar content on the main page is just "business as usual" for him as the founder of WikiProject Gibraltar, and entirely unrelated to the Gibraltarpedia effort? And more importantly, what can be done in general to prevent the Wikipedia main page being flooded with material serving a commercial interest? Regards, Andreas JN466 09:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

re Chris Field (Los Angeles musician)

Hi, thanks for thinking of me!

It does seem like the article could be a bit more NPOV, however when writing in order to satisfy notability standards, that sometimes happens so it's understandable.

Probably the best thing would be to research WP:RS and WP:V secondary sources, and just go ahead and rewrite the entire article from scratch.

What do you think of that approach? — Cirt (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I've informed the artist's management that it would be best practice for them to be hands off (except for vandalism correction and similar non-controversial edits). Jehochman ^Talk 00:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

My only concern is that this is a biography of a living person, and after my restrictions were handed down from the Arbitration Committee, I've avoided any sort of controversy in that area. I'm afraid of coming anywhere close to those restrictions. Lately I've tried my best to focus on quality improvement projects generally related to the topic of freedom of speech, which have led in multiple cases to successful WP:GA and WP:FA quality improvement drives. I fear the potential for sanctions if I violate those restrictions. I'm scared of editing in areas remotely related to those restrictions, and I've kept editing BLPs to a minimum and generally only in cases that were relevant to GA and FA quality improvement drives on other articles I've been working on improving. Jehochman, you're more experienced with Arbitration Cases than I, and more familiar with the dealings of the Arbitration Committee than I am — perhaps you could look over my Arbitration restrictions, and with respect to this particular article, just double-check for me that it's okay for me to edit this article with the goal of attempting to improve its quality, without fear of potential for further sanctions? — Cirt (talk) 03:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know this subject has no connection to the forbidden topics. You can cite this edit if anybody questions you, and if they don't agree, just stop and do something else. You were specifically NOT prohibited from editing BLP's. Jehochman ^Talk 11:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Phew, thank you for that analysis, that is a bit of a relief. Perhaps you could make a statement to that effect at the article's talk page, at Talk:Chris Field (Los Angeles musician), explaining why I am suddenly showing up for a quality improvement project at that article and why it is allowed within my editing parameters within your judgment of my current restrictions given to me from the Arbitration Committee? — Cirt (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this comment. It's quite helpful and actually allows me to breathe a little bit easier. :) — Cirt (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)