User talk:Jayen466/Archives/2015/June

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jayen466. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

News and notes: Three new community-elected trustees announced, incumbents out

Blog: How Wikipedia covered Caitlyn Jenner’s transition

Discussion report: The deprecation of Persondata; RfA – A broken process; Complaints from users on Swedish Wikipedia

Featured content: It's not over till the fat man sings

Technology report: Things are getting SPDYier

Special report: Towards "Health Information for All": Medical content on Wikipedia received 6.5 billion page views in 2013

In the media: Anonymous Australian editing targets football player, shooting victim

Traffic report: A rather ordinary week

Thank You

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For bravery and integrity during the Contribsx ArbCom case. Vordrak (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

		The BLP Barnstar
		For commitment to the truth and integrity during the Contribsx ArbCom case. Vordrak (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Vordrak. And well done for those blog posts. Andreas JN 466 00:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Signpost article

Hi there - I see you contribute to the "In the news section" on the signpost - I was wondering if you felt this piece [1] was worth mentioning - it's an interview I gave to a journalist on Wikipedia and diversity, as well as accuracy (and also some of the projects we've undertaken in Australia. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 02:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC) (also - wow - I didn't realise who you were until I hit save and saw your username!). Hope you're well. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 02:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Done

--Andreas JN 466 09:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks :) Was rather interesting being in the news... Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

News and notes: Chapter financial trends analyzed, news in brief

Traffic report: Two households, both alike in dignity

In the media: Arbitration case attracts media coverage; Wikipedia in Israel

Featured content: Just the bear facts, ma'am

Technology report: Wikimedia sites are going HTTPS only

Blog: Making Wikipedia’s medical articles accessible in Chinese

Request Help - Further Concerns re Chase Me

Jayen466 Hi. I would like to ask your help. Also asked Fæ. I was concerned that, after the ArbCom ruling Chase Me did not take down prose and boxes proclaiming he was an Administrator. I started a thread on his talk page and, whilst some people disagreed the changes were eventually made.

However, on looking again I notice that he still has his previous "I stand by everything" interview linked. This is a clear WP:BLP violation as the facts asserted in the interview have now obviously been found inaccurate by ArbCom - amongst others. There is a clear WP:NPOV problem as he does not link even to later articles by the Guardian correcting facts. It is clearly an attempt to WP:RGW and the controversy associated is clearly putting him in breach of WP:POINT.

I think someone should ask him to change it but do not want to be the one to start the thread on his talk page as I started the last one. I also want to secure a consensus. I think someone should start a thread there explaining the above - perhaps suggest a further ANI hearing if he does not comply. What do you think? Can you help? Vordrak (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you were right to insist on his user boxes being updated to reflect his post-ArbCom status. However, my suggestion would be not to press for anything more at this point, Vordrak. For one, Chase me hasn't really been back—given the circumstances, it's understandable that he hasn't been active—and he may reorganise his user page of his own accord once he is. Secondly, while I think ArbCom came to the right decision, Chase me is entitled to disagree with them, and Wikipedia traditionally gives people quite a bit of leeway on their own user page. His linking to his Guardian interview probably falls under that; given how public this controversy was, I don't think it's an actionable BLP violation. Again, perhaps in time Chase me will add another link to the later Guardian article so that readers of his user page are not misled as to the outcome of the affair, but for now I'd let it go.

Do please let me know if and when the Guardian reports on the reader editor's investigation. ;) Best, Andreas JN 466 21:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I defer to your greater experience. Jayen466 I will leave it alone for now. Also pinging Fæ with this so she knows.

Reader's editor comment is derisory and is on my blog Guardian Responds ... Inadequately Vordrak (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI, Vordrak, Fæ is a he. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Vordrak. Yes, that response skirts some key issues. Andreas JN 466 22:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

“He legitimately took those suspicions to a Wikipedia administrator and a press officer for Wikimedia on April 2. That Wikipedia administrator was too busy to investigate and Richard Symonds, a senior investigator, contacted him and said he would take a look. Ramesh gave his analysis with supporting evidence to Symonds.” [2]. I am confused about the causation here. Was the “Wikipedia administrator and a press officer” one person or two? The article ‘a’ suggests two. Who does 'him' refer to? To Ramesh or the Wikipedia administrator? Why did Symonds contact 'him'? Confusing, and doesn't explain the 2012 relationship between Symonds and the Guardian. Peter Damian (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Cf. [3], where I asked an almost identical question (the answer was: two people). "Him" I think refers to Ramesh; as I read it, that is the 3 April email referred to in the timeline . And indeed, the 2012 relationship is not touched upon. --Andreas JN 466 22:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)