User talk:ESparky

Sarah Jeong DR

Hello, I have brought the unfruitful Sarah Jeong discussion to dispute resolution and am notifying you because you have commented on the Talk page since August 3. You can find a link here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Sarah_Jeong. All the best, Ikjbagl (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

I am posting this on your talkpage out of an abundance of caution solely because you recently edited Talk:Sarah Jeong and, as the message says, not suggesting any policy violation by you. Abecedare (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Since I am operating as an admin on the page, I have avoided commenting on any of the recent and past proposals (for example even Option 2 is not exactly I would have phrased a summary), and have let the editors discuss the content issues among themselves (only intervening for gross BLP violations etc). Your proposal is not a "gross" violation of BLP or NPOV, and likely not an intentional violation either; to prevent biasing the discussion I won't spell it out now but if you are curious I'd be happy to explain simply for your edification some timw when this is no longer a current topic on wikipedia. As for the grammatical and citation corrections/improvements:

"published the title" → "published an article titled"; 'her' has no grammatical antecedent (even if we can guess what it is referring to by context); "noting" violates WP:CLAIM; "An official Twitter account" is unnecessary detail and can be safely excised; 'attributed' → 'said'; 'Twitter statements' → 'Tweets'; 'rhetoric'→ 'her "imitating the rhetoric of her harassers"' (which is what the statement actually says); 'confirming' → 'confirmed' (to parallel the tense of "attributed/said"); 'hiring process' → 'hiring' (although this part is only implied, and not actually 'said' in the statement); 'Twitter (in Latin)' → 'Twitter'; author missing for Reason article etc.

Note that none of these corrections would change the POV of the proposal (or, addressed the POV/BLP concerns I have in mind). These are simple grammar/writing tips, and the fact that almost none of these were caught by reviewers on the page is not a good reflection of the standard of discussion. Abecedare (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedare I agree with the missing subject "Jeong's" instead of "her", since people were reading/voting I did not want to fix the verbiage. So I spend 2 minutes throwing a first draft together as the event was unfolding and get grief for nomenclature -- instead of allowing the group editing to do its magic.

The New York Times Twitter statement (it says statement at the top and it is an image, not a max 280 character Tweet) also says, "She understands that this type of rhetoric is not acceptable at The Times..." and "...we are confident that she will be an important voice for the editorial board going forward." I could care less what they want to call these stupid Twitter messages. On a side note, I'd bet lots of attorneys are looking for Quinn Norton's phone number.

Jeong's hiring process will be completed in September, right now she is in a process known as "onboarding" setting up her accounts, communication channels, nondisclosure agreements/contracts etc.

BTW: Not being able to use the word "noted / noting" is ridiculous -- It means a secondary topic in the context I used it in. Regards, ESparky (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Working on talk pages

About this, three things.

First -- I am happy to collaborate. I am uninterested in your thoughts about my "reputation in the press" and will not collaborate with anyone on an inflammatory topic like this who is as undisciplined as to comment on another contributor in this way. See WP:FOC. Please also consider this a behaviorial warning.

Second -- if you re-read my comment you'll see that I wrote I agree that Above The Law adds no value Yet you wrote in the diff cited above, I'm surprised to see the Above The Law reference sustained your edit. Please see WP:TPNO about avoiding misrepresenting other people in talk page discussions.

Third -- About the Harvard talk video, you seem to have missed that I said In my view the Toast interview and the video (of) her Harvard talk should be moved out of the body as refs and moved into "external links"... i often put these kinds of refs there (instead of using them as refs) ... -- in other words, I said it should not be used as a reference.

You know how to use WP:REDACT as I saw here; please fix these three problems in the diff cited in the first line above, and we can go working to improve the article.

Please read other people's comments more carefully before responding to them. Jytdog (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog First, given that you said, I agree that Above The Law adds no value. That you edited the article to fix references, and the "Above The Law" mention cannot be seen attributable to Jeong in any stretch of the imagination, especially without any prose to explain why it is there. I was surprised to see it sustain. I don't see how mentioning press about Jytdog is in any way detrimental, misrepresents, nor does it expose personal information. You (as Jytdog) have a very well known public reputation pruning and removing puff pieces like these, but redaction

Done.

Second: See "First" above. The record now includes your edit diff. There is nothing more to be said, you agreed both references should be removed and removed only one.

Third: you wrote: In my view the Toast interview and the video (of) her Harvard talk should be moved out of the body as refs and moved into "external links"... i often put these kinds of refs there (instead of using them as refs) ... was EXACTLY what I was responding to and expanding upon. In response, I wrote: The video touches on the RS status of college news sources, because the video was recorded and presented at Harvard, Jeong's alma matter, she is not independent of the source of the video, nor any Harvard event notifications.

I very judicially read your response and responded directly, do we have to go back to the USENET days and prefix everything with "you wrote: xyz"? Regards, ESparky (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now. My edit note said very clearly fix dupe Toast ref. Not controversial in any way. I meant that very precisely. Please note that resolving a duplicate reference is not removing anything. The reference is still there.

Removing sources is more potentially controversial, so instead of boldly removing any references on this particular page, I worked on consensus-building, agreeing with you on the talk page.

With regard to the Harvard video, you persist in assuming that I support using it as a reference. I very clearly do not. That page has a link to a video of her giving a talk and as I noted, I put things like that in ELs so that people can see her in her own words if they want. ELs do not have to be independent; if you are objecting to the use of the video as an EL, the independence is not relevant. I am still not sure what you are arguing about here, in any case, as we agree that it should not be used as a reference.

It would have been more productive if you would have simply asked me why I didn't remove those references.

I will not reply here further until we deal with your paid editing disclosures. You should not reply here either until that is dealt with. Jytdog (talk) 16:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog Now, that I have resigned from paid editing, what is that you want done to my edit on Jeong? I followed the instructions in WP:REDACT i.e., <del> ... </del> and added a five tilde signature after my first ~~~~ ESparky (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PAID violation

I just now noticed the disclosure of paid editing at your userpage and above.

Per the PAID policy, you are obligated to disclose your employer and client for every edit you make.

You are currently in violation of the PAID policy.

You need to identify the client for each edit you have made. You can do that for sets of edits, if there is a single client but it needs to be clear which edits are for which clients.

Please also clarify your employer. When you say "Media Aggregators" do you mean this company?

Please stop editing or commenting anywhere in WP until you come into compliance with the PAID policy.

Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog As far as I know, I am not in violation of the PAID policy. I have not made any edits for any client regarding Sarah Jeong, please see this diff. I fact, I think you should redact your recent edit. diff ESparky (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a much broader issue than the Sarah Jeung page. It is about all of your paid editing.

Again under the paid policy you must disclose your "employer, client, and affiliation for each edit you make.

An "edit" is anything you write, anywhere in Wikipedia.

You have not disclosed clients anywhere that I can see.

You apparently have also edited directly in mainspace while editing for pay; you are strongly discouraged from doing this.

You also have made contradictory disclosures; here for example you say that your employer is "Good Chat Entertainment Pty Ltd."...

I recognize that the templates can be difficult to work with. I can help you with them. Would you please, in simple prose, make all of the disclosures just below? If (for example) you are working for a digital marketing or PR agency, and that agency has clients, you can describe that in prose as: "I work for X; Y contracted with X to have work done on Z article, on behalf of A". (again, just guesssing here but: "I work for Media Aggregators; Good Chat Entertainment Pty Ltd. contracted with Media Aggregators to have work done on the User_talk:ESparky/Emily Perry (singer) article, on behalf of its client, Emily Perry"

That is the information that the PAID policy calls for. Would you please provide that information for all your paid edits? Thanks.Jytdog (talk)

Please be aware that your disclosure above says (your bolding) Various clients -- all edits commencing October 4, 2017. Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JytdogPaid disclosure rescinded, my last paid edit was August 1, 2018. The client has received more hours than they paid for and understood that the AfC process would make the ultimate decision on publication. I will continue to use the Request edit template for edits where I have a connection to the subject.ESparky (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have acted incorrectly in removing the paid editing notices from your user page. The disclosure that you have edited for pay, should remain.

Again -- all of your paid edits have been in violation of the PAID policy. Please disclose your employer, client, and affiliation for each edit you have made for pay. Please do that in prose in below; we can deal with the templates later.

I will not dance with you. The policy is very clear and your lack of compliance is also clear.

If you do not start fully disclosing in your next response here and swiftly respond to resolve any ambiguities, I will seek to have you indefinitely blocked. Jytdog (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alt accounts

You were asked here if you are editing for pay on the Sarah Jeong page and you were asked about alt accounts. In your reply, I do not see a clear answer about alt accounts.

Would you please disclose any other accounts under which you have edited Wikipedia? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that we are not allowed alternate accounts. WP:SOCKESparky (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please answer the question? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that if you have used alternate accounts, this can be managed by disclosing them and using just one going forward. No big deal. The problems arise with using multiple accounts in inappropriate ways and not disclosing them. If you have not used other accounts, then you can just answer by saying that. Jytdog (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog I've probably edited under a half dozen forgotten usernames over the years -- . This is a moniker that's been with me for a long time. I started using it recently when I rediscovered it (instead of creating yet another new account), stylized it is eSparky, but Wikipedia capitalizes the first letter of everything, so I never really search for ESparky. The paid stuff is because everybody thinks they need a Wikipedia article, we've found ways to get around the gatekeeper effect Wikipedia had when Google Free Base was taken down. Regards, ESparky (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please answer the question and identify the old accounts. Would you also please now answer, who is "we". Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog"We" people who work in the search engine optimization occupation. I have no idea what those old monikers were and come to think if it, I could probably be identified in real life with this one. And with the disclosure I just made, I'm thinking I'm going to abandon this account too. ESparky (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Use of multiple accounts and undeclared paid editing despite requests to conform. (evasive answers).

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]