Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Russavia (talk | contribs) at 18:48, 14 December 2008 (→BLP issue around Litvinenko and Putin: rsp). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252Auto-archiving period: 2 days

Archives

Index -index- As of January 16, 2003 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 - late May 2006 May 24 - July 2006 July 2006 - August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 - Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 - December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 - Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 - Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007- Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2-5, 2007 March 5-11, 2007 March 11 - April 3, 2007 April 2 - May 2, 2007 May 3 - June 7, 2007 June 9 - July 4, 2007 July 13 - August 17, 2007 August 17 - September 11, 2007 September 14 - October 7, 2007 October 28 - December 1, 2007 December 2 - December 16, 2007 December 15 - January 4, 2008 January 4 - January 30, 2008 January 30 - February 28, 2008 February 28 - March 11, 2008 March 9 - April 18, 2008 April 18 - May 30, 2008 May 30 - July 27, 2008 July 26 - October 4, 2008 October 4 - November 12, 2008 November 10 - December 10, 2008 December 5 - December 25, 2008 December 25 - January 16, 2009 January 15 - January 27, 2009 January 26 - February 10, 2009 February 8 - March 18, 2009 March 18 - May 6, 2009 May 5 - June 9, 2009 June 10 - July 11, 2009 July 12 - August 29, 2009

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

IWF blocking is over

http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.251.htm rootology (C)(T) 18:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

And with that can we finally put the silly notion of removing that album cover image to rest? While there are doubtless any number of images hosted on the server that have no business here, Virgin Killer is not one of them. It is a work of art that has, to my knowledge, never been banned, deemed "obscene", "pornographic", or even prurient by any court in any jurisdiction. The notability of the image is evident from the controversy surrounding it. The controversy and resultant worldwide media coverage provide a fair-use rationale far beyond the mere representation of an album cover and the community consensus to keep the image has been reaffirmed many times. Yes, it probably is time to step back and take a dispassionate look at issues of improper image uploading, in my opinion it is not so much a failure of current policy but, rather, a lack of editorial oversight. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the PR-speak version of "boy, did we screw THAT up." Nice to see some level of sanity has returned. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I support taking a good hard look at whether the image is appropriate for wikipedia in the first place. Notwithstanding the victory over censorship, we should have our own standards are above and beyond any questions of "is it legal or not in the UK"? I have seen no one engage in a serious analysis of whether the image is actually legal in the US, with reference to US law and relevant convictions - are we putting our users at risk? I know that I, for one, have no interest in having the image on my computer in any way, shape or form, and if it is sent to me against my will, I simply delete it instantly. There are serious questions about the image in light of our BLP policy as well: this is an image of an identifiable person, a minor at the time. In any event, please do not hold this discussion on my talk page - this is not the right venue for it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw several people mention that the FBI was asked to take a look at the image because of child pornography concerns, and they pretty much dismissed the complaint out of hand. I can't confirm this, though. J.delanoy_adds 04:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed none of us can confirm the FBI dismissed it out of hand, but thanks for the comment about the need to discuss the appropriateness of this image, a discussion will be needed at some point soon, and not here. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any actual evidence other than tabloid journalism that the FBI was ever consulted at all. I also consider this to be more or less irrelevant. "No one has gone to jail yet for possessing the image" does not imply "therefore it belongs in Misplaced Pages". I think that an exclusive focus on whether or not the image crosses the legal line is really not that interesting - in the sense that I think the much more interesting question is whether it violates our policies on BLP (among other things).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Various groups did say they had contacted the FBI. How far that got is unclear. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

There have also been various claims that the girl feels fine about the image but I have never seen any evidence of this, and if it isn't so the pic is, IMO, a blp violation. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Why a BLP violation? Presumably the girl's parents signed a release on her behalf when the original photo was taken - it wasn't taken in secret, so where's the BLP violation? – ukexpat (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Making presumptions of that sort does not satisfy blp requirements. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

She did give an interview in which she stated she didn't mind it. I can't locate the interview right now however. (If soemone else can run that down it would be good. Also note that if the basic idea behind BLP is Do No Harm then there's no concern here anyways given the widespread nature of the image). And SB: that isn't a minor presumption. It is routine to get parental releases when using underage models for any purpose. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would be great to see evidence of this interview, and IMO it would make a difference re our blp policy and this image; it is still a presumption and nor do what the parents think or thought affect our blp policy. She is an adult now and can speak for herself. The fact that the image is displayed elsewhere also does not affect our blp policy, as I believe Jimbo implies above. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok. It looks like she didn't give an actual interview. The Scorpions however in an interview said they talked to her about 15 years later and she was fine with it. From this interview "We met the girl some 15 years later and she never had a problem with it." I suppose one could bring up the issue of whether they are a reliable source in this context but I see no good reason to doubt the claim. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. Looks thoroughly inadequate for our BLP policy, because it is a vague comment from a third party and was made 20 odd years ago, and indeed confirms that this image is a blp violation. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Um what? How are you getting in any way shape or form that this "confirms that this image is a blp violation"? JoshuaZ (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

We are confusing each other, it appears, and should probably be discussing this elsewhere. But I will say that for all we know, as a middle aged woman she is mortified, embarrassed etc about this image. If we had a currentish statement from her, and only from her, then we would not have to worry about BLP, but a claim from a member of the band, who is by definition not impartial, that she was okay about it 20 years ago comes nowhere near satisfying our conservative BLP policy. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Well then last remark. I suppose any further discussion should occur on either BLPN or in an IFD. I don't think the fact that the statement is from a long time ago is at all relevant. Under that logic we would need to reconfirmations periodically that people are still ok with content of them. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

A statement from the girl, 18+, even though years ago would suffice for me, but we don't have it. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox, give it a rest. Trying to claim a BLP violation on an album cover from 1976, an album that received worldwide distribution, an album that is still readily available in fixed form from record stores (at least here in the US) because you can't read a letter from a compensated performer in a work for hire some 32 years after the fact is ridiculous. You are wasting the community's time with your prudish axe-grinding. You don't like this image, we get it. If it bothers you so much, simply configure your account so as not to view it and stop trying force your personal taste in art onto everybody else. You people (repressed prudes, religious fundamentalists, nanny-state expansionists, Misplaced Pages Review sycophants, et al.) have tried to rationalize deleting this image with cries of it might be porn, no fair-use, and now BLP but it all boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This image has never, never been declared child pornography by any jurisdiction, in particular the great state of Florida; the only jurisdiction that has any bearing on this discussion (sorry foreigners, your country's legal machinations and opinions carry no weight at all here.) As I stated above, while there may be images at Commons that are inappropriate for inclusion in the encyclopedia, Virgin Killer is not one of them. The controversy surrounding the cover and even this current tempest in a teapot more than justify the use of the image to illustrate the article. Mr. Wales, I'm sorry for adding this to your talk page after you asked us not to and I do agree there are image issues to be discussed at Commons but I feel there are very important matters of free speech involved here. Thank you. L0b0t (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

BLP is a policy that refers to living people, and many of us living people were around in 1976, believe it or nopt, including all those still alive involved in that article. BLP covers all events involving living people going back a lot further than that year and if you want to say that that is not so go and start a blog. And how precisely does wikipedia choosing to delete theimage, if so, relate to free speech. If we deleted it now it would be our decision and not based on any IWF pressure so i fail to see where any free speech issue remains. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to respond to just one part of this discussion. The argument that the only thing that matters is whether or not it is legal in Florida doesn't do much for me. Lots of things are legal in Florida but not appropriate for Misplaced Pages. I am concerned that people's finding that the work has never landed anyone in prison, while of some tangential interest, is misleading people from the real issues here. I would like to see a serious analysis of the question of appropriateness which completely avoids this question.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, please allow me to clarify. When I speak of Florida having jurisdiction what I mean is that the vast majority of arguments put forward by those who would have the image removed (especially on a certain Misplaced Pages attack site where contributors are discussing ways to change our policies regarding images) have been along the lines of I think child pornography is wrong, and a private organization in a foreign land have labeled this image "a potentially illegal indecent image of a child under the age of 18" so it must be child pornography; let's get rid of it. It is to those that would put forth that line of reasoning that I point out that only the United States and the State of Florida are entitled to make that determination under force of law and that is a matter for the WMF and not the community at large. That is, of course, a wholly separate matter from editorial oversight, which is a matter for the community of contributors. So let's have that analysis of appropriateness. I posit that it is a prime example of exactly when a controversial image is appropriate and necessary in an article. WP:CENSOR tells us "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness, but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content." What part of WP:BLP do people think apply to this image? Commons:Photographs of identifiable people would seem to be the germane rule not WP:BLP (which deals with descriptions of known people in articles not commercial work product of unnamed models). Image passes COM:IDENT, passes WP:NFC and WP:Non-free content criteria exemptions. It is a notable image that is being used, quite rightly, to illustrate not only the original album but also the tremendous controversy surrounding the image itself. To SqueakBox, when arguments boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and people want the image removed simply because it offends their personal sensibilities and taste, then yes, it has become a free speech issue. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 06:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

To further clarify for Mr. Wales, if a court in Zimbabwe or Pakistan or the UK or anywhere on Earth outside of the State of Florida judges this image (or any other) to be prohibited by their legal system, their opinion carries NO WEIGHT WHATSOEVER IN THIS DISCUSSION and can not and MUST not be used as an argument for deletion or removal. Since the servers are in Florida, only a Florida court can define this image as obscene. Since no court anywhere, at any time has done so, this image is by very definition NOT obscene and any argument based upon its supposed offensiveness is merely a massive extension of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and is specifically proscribed by WP:CENSOR. The only issue at hand here is the appropriateness (based on our extant policies & guidelines) of the image in an article to illustrate the subject of that article. That, I think, has been settled as evidenced by the many deletion discussions that have already been had. Any further attempt to get rid of this image smacks of pointy disruption and those calling for deletion should be ashamed of themselves. L0b0t (talk) 15:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point, this isn't about legality in Florida, the UK, Honduras or wherever, its about we wikipedians debating the issue with the fact that we are an educational charity in our minds; claiming my arguments are "I don't like" is uninformed opinionising, and nothing more. I have more reason than most to be angry at what the IWF did because of my long term commitment to not seeing pedophile activism on wikipedia. Personally I don't care where the servers are, why would any simple non-American editor care, as the only issues that interest me are the appropriateness of the image for our project, and the glaring blp issues. As I have said before, I am amused that some of the folk who claim to be anti-censorship are trying to censor a debate on the appropriateness of the image, but this debate clearly is going to happen at the appropriate moment. Discussing the issue for a couple of weeks back in May is not, as some would claim, a final decision that we can never go back on, and your pointishness claims are thus inappropriate. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really over

Not related to the image itself, but I think definitely important. Even today, some 5 days or so after the blacklisting was lifted, Some ISPs are still blocking and several are still proxying all the traffic trough a small set of IPs. I think this shows how technically deficient the implementation of this system is a this moment. All the arguments for the British system have always stated how "transparent" it was to most Internet users. It shows however that the implementation of the ISPs differ hugely per ISP and are clearly lacking a "coordinated" technical requirements-set. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well what do you expect. Expecting technical perfection re any online issues is unrealistic in the extreme. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking personally, I never expect perfection, since i'm used to using a research network that has almost any "feature" active that you can think of (registration, logging, graphing, shaping, vlan's, several types of wireless encryption, VPN services, IPv6 and multicast), with brings a relative instability that comes with providing so many experimental features at the same time. I'm just saying that what we have here is a clear case of missing customers that should be chasing their ISP managers and technical staff with a cluebat or move to another ISP. It is technical illiteracy of both the ISPs and the customers, and it is an important element of the discussion. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with you. Some folk were claiming BT et al were breaking the law by not providing a proper 404 notice, which is the same kind of clueless approach to internet technology that I was talking about, expecting perfection in a cutting edge technology plagued with bugs. As someone who deals with these issues daily in my work I respond to the technical difficulties that others point out to me, and now the image issue is resolved re IWF it is indeed critical that customers complain, and that the isps respond professionally to the complaints, and fix the problems. that way we all learn. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Until It Sleeps is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Block

Please, Block Drini it's a Dictator, and blocks me for no reason. See http://es.wikipedia.org/Especial:BlockLog/201.207.245.14 Last Block.

201.207.245.14 (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo is not a sysop at es.wiki, nor has he ever exercised the position of founder there, like he does here at enwiki. Also, using his steward powers there without an invitation from their community would be highly frowned upon. I would suggest you try and handle this internally at es.wiki. MBisanz 18:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Drini is a he, as you well know, and as the word it doesn't even exist in Spanish it makes me think he was right to block you. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Narutolovehinata5 is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Santa hat

Do you want me to photoshop a cartoon santa hat on your head? 67.166.63.22 (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC) Someone has been vandalising pages that way, but I think it would actually belong on your user page :) 67.166.63.22 (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

How much trouble can I get myself into in one day?

Hey Jimbo.

Someone told me it is impossible to block you. Is this true? I'm too scared to try it... J.delanoy_adds 03:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is possible, see: my block log. The software is always changing and I do have 'founder' flag, which might have some impact on this, though I doubt it. It would be pretty unwise to have actual software prevention on *this account* being blocked - suppose for example, my password were compromised, or I went crazy or something. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Ha! I'm surprised it isn't somewhat longer, since I've seen newbie Admins told in IRC "you can try and block Jimbo, but it won't work", and it's a credit to those newbies that they are clued enough not to risk it. Perhaps in that regard, we're largely getting it right here. --Rodhullandemu 23:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello.

Hi. That's all I wanted to say.

Vuerqex Quetzal Algernon (talk)

Jimbo

Happy holidays!

--Lucro (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

BLP issue around Litvinenko and Putin

I have removed some of the past discussion because I found it to be distasteful and inflammatory. Trying to make the issue more emotional by framing it as if ludicrous accusations might be made about me personally is not helpful.

Having said that, I think my advice to everyone is this: calm down and slow down. I see some commonalities in everyone's position which suggest that a suitable compromise can be reached, we are perhaps down to the nitty-gritty of precise wording.

- That Litvinenko made these accusations against Putin is apparently agreed by all to be a relevant fact - It is relevant in no small part because the accusations appear to be generally regarded as unsubstantiated; what is interesting about the allegation is not what they say about Putin (basically, nothing because they have no real evidentiary basis) but what they may suggest about Litvinenko - Therefore the allegations should not be repeated uncritically but framed in such a fashion as to show that people regard them with great skepticism

No one seems to be claiming that the accusation belongs in the article on Putin. No one seems to be arguing that the claims must be removed from the article on Litivnenko. Biophys seems to be suggesting that he's willing to accept Russavia's version. I recommend that further discussion be carried out on the talk page for the article, not my talk page, and that more editors get involved.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Unfortunately, the problem is not what you have commented on. The problem is that 3 admins and 2 Arbcom members were alerted to the problem; the 3 admins and 1 arbcom members fobbed off the problem without even looking at it, and 1 arbcom member stated "Vladimir Putin is clearly subject to WP:BLP. However it is not the same thing to add a controversial claim to the article on Vladimir Putin, as to add to the article on Alexander Litvinenko the fact that Litvinenko had made highly speculative claims about Putin"; however, if one were to read WP:BLP, the first line clearly states "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Misplaced Pages page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies"...the operative words, in regards to this problem, being any Misplaced Pages page. You know, as well as I do, that the English language is a powerful tool, and the way that statements are written will determine whether it is being presented as opinion, accusation or a statement of fact. The phrase "amongst others who knew about Putin's paedophilia" is not worded as an opinion nor accusation, but as a statement of fact; there is perhaps a reason why no mainstream news outlet would have ever run such an article because it is inflammatory, and it would open them up to all sorts of lawsuits. And it's the same reason that what I wrote on your talk page was removed; as I have mentioned at several talk pages, what would happen if I were to put that on the George W. Bush article, or if it were to appear on your article? Nowhere has it received a response. The information has been posted previously at several avenues and has gathered no response. What I posted on your talk page was done in order to get a response from yourself, knowing how you regard issues surrounding WP:BLP, in that at least 3 admins and 2 Arbcom members have been alerted to a problem, and were referred to an arbcom decision which was passed, and yet every single one ignored it; and as shown, at least one of those appears to misunderstand how WP:BLP operates. Is that acceptable in your mind? --Russavia 18:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)