| Revision as of 20:00, 10 July 2008 editSwatjester (talk | contribs)Administrators27,642 edits →Quick question← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:23, 11 July 2008 edit undoXizes (talk | contribs)947 edits →Quick questionNext edit → | ||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
| :::: A certain well-known editor was using TOR and as they're not an admin, I was wondering if they had their exempt bit set. It had come up as part of another checkuser - nothing nefarious. Then I saw yours, with the 'sysop' tag beside it - ] <sup>]</sup> 19:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC) | :::: A certain well-known editor was using TOR and as they're not an admin, I was wondering if they had their exempt bit set. It had come up as part of another checkuser - nothing nefarious. Then I saw yours, with the 'sysop' tag beside it - ] <sup>]</sup> 19:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::::Ah. ]] ] 20:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC) | :::::Ah. ]] ] 20:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == The special barnstar == | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Special Barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I, ] award you this barnstar for a one-of-a-kind ] that looks totally awesome and "MySpace-ish". Very unique design and idea. --]<sup>]</sup> 03:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
Revision as of 03:23, 11 July 2008
Φ
Legal expertise
John and I have already addressed parts of the issue, but I would appreciate your further ruling on the matter based on your legal expertise on and off wiki here. I am in communication with the subject, and I directly asked if there was a problem so far and there was no mention of such. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Whoa. That's a lot. Question: Is the article in its current form this diff, as I am reading right now acceptable to you? If so, who is it unacceptable to? ⇒SWATJester 20:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Here's what I see right now. You have a notable figure, Windom, worthy of his own article (obviously). You have one relatively minor scandal, the false allegations against him. The scandal, and related litigation MIGHT be able to survive as its own article, but might not. However, it's certainly not a notable enough event to merit significant inclusion on Windom's article, due to BLP's requirement that we not give undue weight on biographies of living people to minor, non-notable events that are not representative of the person's history as a whole. This is a catch-22. Because of BLP, you can't put too much information about it on Windom's article: it's undue weight. However, you might have trouble doing its own article on the scandal or the litigation (which, being not a biography would not be subject to the BLP issues) because of notability concerns. As a side note to all of that, you have the issue that extensive coverage of Mr. Ivey, who as far as I can tell is not a notable person outside this case (correct me if I'm wrong), is not appropriate on Mr. Windom's article. Ivey similarly would not merit his own article. My suggestion is this. (And it's a suggestion, not a ruling, I don't have the authority to give those, and nothing here is a clear enough violation of policy to support an administrative action). If the parties can agree on the language that's currently on the page, which is only 4 sentences on the topic (1 short paragraph), my suggestion is to go with that language and move on. If people want more information, you can add an external link to a court document, or they can google it on their own. If the parties cannot agree on the language that's currently on the page, my suggestion is that the scandal event cannot likely survive deletion debate on its own, and due to BLP should not receive more than a few sentences in the article: any debate between the parties on the language of the article should keep that in mind. One of the things that people often miss is that just because we have the ability to spin things off onto subpages and make new articles on them, doesn't mean that we need to. Not all content needs to be included: part of the process of professional editing is that you can do much much more with less. Also, I urge the parties to avoid the issue of arguing over what is defamation, who defines it, and stop worrying about enforcement of law. If that becomes an issue, it will be an issue for the office and the OTRS legal team, not the talk page editors. Instead, focus on a version that comports to policy. Policy is written in such a way that if things truly follow it, you will not have to worry about defaming anyone. Like I said: the article looks pretty good the way it is right now. But any more detail starts to be pushing it a little. ⇒SWATJester 20:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. Just a little more info - I've been searching for "biography" information (mostly neutral - records, voting information, initiatives, etc, that can flesh out his career) in order to expand the page and hopefully cover any "undue weight" by expanding the page to about double its current size (or more if possible). I have been in contact with the page's subject so I hope that we can fend off anything from his end before it could happen (not to say that it would). I don't really care about the "scandal" material and the original disputers seem to have gotten past it as an issue to fight over (they are slowly working on a compromise), but it seems that there is a dead horse that someone wishes to keep beating. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- I mean....he's a Republican politician in Alabama. He's got to have SOME information out there. ⇒SWATJester 04:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- This is pertinent to the above. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, my proposal for spinning the content off on its own article wasn't so much to expand the content, but rather to include in the main article only a summary section of only a few sentences, indicating Windom won a libel case. From what I've seen, a summary like that would allow the material to presented neutrally and at whatever length is appropriate, but being in a separate article I get the impression fewer people would make the effort to review the article, and thus it would likely get very little attention. With the 1600 articles or so dealing with Windom in the Birmingham paper though, I do get the impression the subject is probably notable enough for a separate article. John Carter (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- This is pertinent to the above. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- I mean....he's a Republican politician in Alabama. He's got to have SOME information out there. ⇒SWATJester 04:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. Just a little more info - I've been searching for "biography" information (mostly neutral - records, voting information, initiatives, etc, that can flesh out his career) in order to expand the page and hopefully cover any "undue weight" by expanding the page to about double its current size (or more if possible). I have been in contact with the page's subject so I hope that we can fend off anything from his end before it could happen (not to say that it would). I don't really care about the "scandal" material and the original disputers seem to have gotten past it as an issue to fight over (they are slowly working on a compromise), but it seems that there is a dead horse that someone wishes to keep beating. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Here's what I see right now. You have a notable figure, Windom, worthy of his own article (obviously). You have one relatively minor scandal, the false allegations against him. The scandal, and related litigation MIGHT be able to survive as its own article, but might not. However, it's certainly not a notable enough event to merit significant inclusion on Windom's article, due to BLP's requirement that we not give undue weight on biographies of living people to minor, non-notable events that are not representative of the person's history as a whole. This is a catch-22. Because of BLP, you can't put too much information about it on Windom's article: it's undue weight. However, you might have trouble doing its own article on the scandal or the litigation (which, being not a biography would not be subject to the BLP issues) because of notability concerns. As a side note to all of that, you have the issue that extensive coverage of Mr. Ivey, who as far as I can tell is not a notable person outside this case (correct me if I'm wrong), is not appropriate on Mr. Windom's article. Ivey similarly would not merit his own article. My suggestion is this. (And it's a suggestion, not a ruling, I don't have the authority to give those, and nothing here is a clear enough violation of policy to support an administrative action). If the parties can agree on the language that's currently on the page, which is only 4 sentences on the topic (1 short paragraph), my suggestion is to go with that language and move on. If people want more information, you can add an external link to a court document, or they can google it on their own. If the parties cannot agree on the language that's currently on the page, my suggestion is that the scandal event cannot likely survive deletion debate on its own, and due to BLP should not receive more than a few sentences in the article: any debate between the parties on the language of the article should keep that in mind. One of the things that people often miss is that just because we have the ability to spin things off onto subpages and make new articles on them, doesn't mean that we need to. Not all content needs to be included: part of the process of professional editing is that you can do much much more with less. Also, I urge the parties to avoid the issue of arguing over what is defamation, who defines it, and stop worrying about enforcement of law. If that becomes an issue, it will be an issue for the office and the OTRS legal team, not the talk page editors. Instead, focus on a version that comports to policy. Policy is written in such a way that if things truly follow it, you will not have to worry about defaming anyone. Like I said: the article looks pretty good the way it is right now. But any more detail starts to be pushing it a little. ⇒SWATJester 20:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Whoa. That's a lot. Question: Is the article in its current form this diff, as I am reading right now acceptable to you? If so, who is it unacceptable to? ⇒SWATJester 20:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Appropriate?
Then how come a remix section is in almost every other song with a remix? Its good to have the remix section because its part of the subject of the song itself. Chris Iz Cali (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's certainly not in every other song with a remix, just like songs that have been covered by other artists aren't in every single article about the song. The remixes are also non-notable, and remixes that are notable enough end up meriting their own articles. As well, the remixes have no verifiable sources, and don't meet our requirements for inclusion. ⇒SWATJester 21:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Another Misplaced Pages Meetup
Yo, do you know if any discussion or planning has taken place for another DC Misplaced Pages Meetup? I'm from Philly, but might be able to make it down. Waarmstr (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- There is plan for one in August, but nothing's been started. I'll drop a note to SchuminWeb, and Kirill, Raul654, and the other people to see who's interested. ⇒SWATJester 21:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Where would this DC meet up be? (not that I'd ever be able to have an opportunity to leave either one of the libraries or the archives) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- The last one was at Pizza Uno in Union Station, which seems to be a good compromise location for mostly everyone involved. Plus they seem to like us. WE're doing them about every 4 months or so. This will be number 5.⇒SWATJester 01:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Where would this DC meet up be? (not that I'd ever be able to have an opportunity to leave either one of the libraries or the archives) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- There is plan for one in August, but nothing's been started. I'll drop a note to SchuminWeb, and Kirill, Raul654, and the other people to see who's interested. ⇒SWATJester 21:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
New C&C template dispute
Seems there is a new template dispute going on. Since you're a proponent of the template's current revision, I thought you might want to have your say.
The discussion is being held here. Kalamrir (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
A Milli Remix
wat r u talkin about?? there is a chamillionaire remix of a milli & it is up on his website for download. i dont get why that can't be on there.Lil Drift (talk) 03:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Not everything that exists belongs on Misplaced Pages. ⇒SWATJester 12:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Quick question
Hi there. While looking at an unrelated matter, I was surprised to see this flag on your account. As you're already a sysop and exempt by default, is there a reason why you need this? Just curious more than anything else ... - Alison 17:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, at the time that I put it on, I was unaware that Sysops had that permission by default. I was testing out an Ironkey to see if it could bypass some surveillance and blocking software on my work computer (it did), and to see if it could still edit Misplaced Pages with all the security functions turned on (it can). ⇒SWATJester 18:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ah - that makes sense :) I was kinda wondering. Just to prevent others' getting confuzzled about this, I'm going to just turn it back off. Thanks! - Alison 19:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Of course, it I'd checked in the logs first, I'd have seen the reason. Duh! :) - Alison 19:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- As a question, what unrelated matter led you to be looking into me? ⇒SWATJester 19:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- A certain well-known editor was using TOR and as they're not an admin, I was wondering if they had their exempt bit set. It had come up as part of another checkuser - nothing nefarious. Then I saw yours, with the 'sysop' tag beside it - Alison 19:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- As a question, what unrelated matter led you to be looking into me? ⇒SWATJester 19:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The special barnstar
|
The Special Barnstar | |
| I, User:Xizes award you this barnstar for a one-of-a-kind user page that looks totally awesome and "MySpace-ish". Very unique design and idea. --Xizes 03:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC) |