User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 141

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jimbo Wales. 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.

Archive 135

←

Archive 139

→

Unanswered questions from the archives

Hi Jimmy, is it okay to bring back unanswered questions from the archives here? I have been reverted twice for trying to do so. I see others doing it occasionally. I hope you don't consider it abuse of your talk page. How do you feel about other editors deleting such questions? 192.81.0.147 (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It's too bad WP:BADGERING is a redlink. Looie496 (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Because we have this. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 04:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with either of these responses. It can sometimes be ok to bring back threads that have been archived, but it's a judgment call as it might be regarded as badgering or trolling. I sometimes don't answer threads because I think other people have answered the question well enough, or because I don't have enough information to say anything useful, etc. Simply reposting isn't always going to change that, but asking again in a different way (perhaps giving me more information to work with) can be useful.

To answer briefly each of the specific threads that the ip address is inquiring about.

Webcite - I have no strong view on this. I think it is a valuable service and I hope it is saved. I hope that they will get in touch with the Foundation in a direct professional capacity to inquire about the possibility of a grant. I don't think the Foundation should take over or try to provide such a service, since the software is completely different and we have no experience in that area. However, I am not the decision maker on such things, and it would be wrong for me to push my own mostly uninformed views on staff on a question like that.
Readership statistics by organization - I'm opposed to this. My view is that when you edit Wikipedia, you are taking a public action and so of course we publish edit histories and so on. But reading is a private matter and everyone - even people who work for organizations - has a fundamental human right to read what they wish to read in Wikipedia. I suppose it would be fine to have some research on reading patterns from different groups of people, but even there, specific organizations aren't really the interesting research questions. I'd like to know what women tend to read more of relative to men, or what people tend to read during "lunch time" wherever they happen to live versus "dinner time".
My talk at Wikimania - I see nothing in this that I could respond to. I could, I suppose, respond to Kumioko's trolling, but I see no purpose in it.
Two threads relating to Monsanto - looks like an ordinary editing dispute with COI allegations with no new implications. This is the sort of thing that I take a keen interest in, of course, but as my wife has just had a baby, I'm unlikely to have the time to directly look into this one unless I'm persuaded that it's a bigger and more interesting issue that most.
Gulf war syndrome - even more than the Monsanto one, this doesn't look like something that rises to the level that it would need my attention. The question is better asked at the talk page and if more eyes are needed, then posting in a relevant board would make sense.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Even a small response is a great help to make progress. The two threads are about Monsanto and Bayer. I hope you will ask about any such medical issues which may seem fishy at WT:MED please. Best, 192.81.0.147 (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

And at m:WebCite, where I posted this, we should have a reply from a WMF tech staff person shortly. Biosthmors (talk) 09:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Secret RFCs?

I was wondering if one could avoid long protracted discussions (like e.g. now about Manning) if instead of a big RFC one were to hold a RFC where editors are asked to email the closing Admin(s) with their arguments. One could consider doing this if an initial RFC points to not enough consensus on the issue. Typically what you see in such cases is that any formation of consensus one way or the other is pushed back against by the other side coming out more. Also, you usually get a large number of separate discussion threads that the closing Admins will have a difficult time reading.

Those discussions may be useful for individual editors to form their opinions, so it wouldn't be a problem for this to happen in an initial RFC. If that RFC would have a clear consensus, the closing Admins don't really have to read all that has been said in every thread. But if there is no consensus, then I think it's better for a secret RFC to be held via email. In that case, it could be helpful to post the number of people who have responded so far every day and to close it at a certain date, unless not enough people have responded by that date. Count Iblis (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That is a truly dumb idea. Since noone could see the evidence, it would make every decision the whim of the admin chosen to close it. ('From now on, Chelsea/Bradley Manning is only to be referred to as "The Perilous Poozer of Pamplemousse Pass". I can assure you there was an overwhelming consensus for it. Sorry, I can't tell you who supported it, that's secret.') Mogism (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Please let's try to refrain from saying things like "That is a truly dumb idea". It will be better to simply explain the problems with some idea that you regard as dumb, without bringing in a harsh judgmental tone.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, that can be dealt with by appointing a panel of Admins, one can be a sitting ArbCom member and all the emails can be published after the closing of the RFC. Count Iblis (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC's should continue to be open discussions. I do think that they (or at least the more controversial ones) should be closed only by an elected panel of multiple editors. Otherwise the results depend too much on who steps up to be the closer. It is somewhat encouraging that in the Manning situation, there will be three closers, but I don't think that's enough. By the way, Mogism, I believe you have misspelled Pomplemoose. (I never realized it before, but that book is a pretty good analogy for Wikipedia itself at times.) Neutron (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think there is some merit in the Count Iblis suggestion, although I'll quickly add that I see it as a useful supplementary process, rather than as a replacement. I've been doing something about the processes we use for decision-making in Wikipedia, which have many strength but some short-comings. I hope to write an essay soon with some thoughts about how to improve the process, without giving up our core beliefs in community consensus. My nascent thoughts include a process which has some of the attributes of that proposed by the good Count. Like all new ideas, it is likely to crash and burn, but I'll give it a shot.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it would be interesting to work out an idea like this in deail, so I'll read your essay with interest. The objections that have been made in this thread about discussions being useful can be dealt with within such a process, as you write it's not really a replacement for RFCs just an additional tool that will be available. Count Iblis (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I think people are surpassingly unlikely to be swayed by the results of secret RFCs. They barely accept the results of public ones if they're not 95:5 or more - David Gerard (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Secret RfCs would deter news/updated facts: A major benefit of the current system, of open RfC discussions, is to allow for new/updated facts to be highlighted in the ongoing discussions. For example, when Manning's attorney announced, on 26 August 2013, how Manning expected reports about the trial to use name "Bradley" and "he" then that reduced the potential for disrespect of not using the current transgender as "she". Now, if the RfC closes as use title "Bradley Manning" then at least many people would be informed of the expectation of Manning to see the name "Bradley" in historical references, which I think is a major benefit of allowing an open RfC to respond to news/updates which are noted during the discussion. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Gibraltarpedia. Again.

[1] Attempting to get rid of DYK restrictions. I think you might want to weigh in here before the semi-secret vote closes. AwarenessNow! (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Calling an RfC a semi-secret vote is funny. Agathoclea (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Even with these restrictions, there have apparently been 20 Gibraltar-related DYKs this year. Twenty seems like a lot for such a small place, but whatever is driving this shows no signs of stopping so why keep fighting it? Let's open the floodgates and see what happens. There should be another X-pedia project along soon to replace Gibraltar anyway. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

To answer the question you posed in your edit summary: I, for one, am very unlikely to care when an "OMG SCANDAL" thread is started by an anonymous coward. In fact, I am half tempted to go in and support the lifting of restrictions, simply because of this thread. Reso lute 19:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Yea, I mean, who wants to evaluate the merits of a given situation and weigh the pros & cons of the differing points of view? That there's just crazy talk, when voting out of spite is so much easier. Tarc (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course not. But to be perfectly honest, when I see socks starting threads like this, my thought process going in to review the merits of something like this would likely become one of "why should the restriction not be lifted?" as opposed to "why should the restriction be lifted?". Or to put it simply, these little panic threads aren't likely to elicit the kind of response the OP is looking for from me, especially when our anonymous coward has to rely on deliberate misrepresentations like calling an RFC "semi-secret". Reso lute 22:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I actually sympathize with how you feel, Resolute, but I also agree with Tarc. One thing to remember is that my talk page in particular is a place where some of our self-styled critics like to post things in highly inflammatory ways while leaving out key details in an endless effort to catch me personally in a "gotcha".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Whole WP today now secure HTTPS

Just FYI of latest bizarre WP changes. I see today the "https:" secure-server prefix is being forced into every "http:" page on English Wikipedia, after appearing in other-language wikipedias last week. We had just recently re-indexed Google to use normal "http:" prefix for all those pages, and now I wonder what will happen to them: "Parabola", "Hyperbola", "Gone with the Wind", "Hexagon", "Basketball" or "Alan Turing", etc. This weekly MediaWiki-update crap is really over-the-top, so now I see:

"imagine a world in which the sum of all human knowledge
is presented in a new computer format every week"

It has become totally wiki-bizarre. The continual morphing of WP every week is very unsettling, with new Wikidata one-to-one language interwiki restrictions, dropping the Classic or Nostalgia browser skins, or forcing the "edit" button to invoke VisualEditor, or double-buttoning of "edit | edit-source" (or "edit wikitext" in some languages), etc. All of those distractions are just too much mental overhead, and I would predict many former users would be driven away. New users would not realize the continual morphing until months later, but even they will feel the instability of working with user-interface mush. Imagine when the wp:FLOW crap hits the fan. Although some people thrive on constant change and newness, most people tend to be "creatures of habit" who will be disturbed by all these questionable weekly changes. Just saying, for the record. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Can be reset in Special:Preferences: in top Basic information, uncheck "[_] Always use a secure connection when logged in". -Wikid77 13:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I've found and turned this off now and am able to use Wikipedia in Chrome again. Warden (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing will happen to them for now, they use the canonical tag, and the canonical/non logged-in views of Wikipedia are still http by default. For now, as stated in the blog, that would be step 4 in the 7 steps to secure the website. At that point all wmf wiki pages might be indexed as https. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

This change to https is the way of the future. My view is that all websites should move to https as soon as they practically can. The question of the impact on users of 'release early, release often' is an interesting one, but I don't think it will have any real impact at all on regular users. Things change on websites, and people adjust to it - especially if the changes are for the better. (And often, the only way to know if a change is for the better is to actually try it!)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm a regular user and my access with Chrome is now fubar so I've had to regress to IE and that's not progress. I suppose it will get sorted eventually but the lack of choice makes the workrounds more problematic than they need to be. Why are these changes always forced upon users? Warden (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean with "my access with Chrome is now fubar"? (This comment is written with the chrome browser, using https). Belorn (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I mean that the display was munged to the point of being unusable. It's just like Mordac says, "Security is more important than usability. In a perfect world, no-one would be able to use anything." Warden (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you provided a screen shot. As you describe it, it does not sound as an issue with the certificate, as such manifest itself as clear error messages and not issues with the pages itself. More likely, this sound as an issue with plugins (are you using Wikipedia plugings for editing?), using an unstable version of chrome, or a hardware issue. A blog by one of the developer or StarCraft and Guild Wars wrote that about 1% of all their users who played the game had hardware issue (memory corruption), which often in a tiny and non-obvious way corrupted or crashed the game. People can use a computer with corrupted memory and not notice any issues for years, and most will disregard random crashes as "well, that is how computer are". So please, rather than cite dilbert and try to be cynical, help use help you. If it is an issue with wikimedia, then it will get a bug ticket and get fixed to everyones benefit. Belorn (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Warden, were you using the "dev" version of Chrome? If so, reverting to "stable" helps for now. It's not all due to https: - Chrome are rolling out their "aura" versions in dev. releases, and aura is pretty resource intensive and slow on my system, using its own widgets for scrollbars/combos etc instead of the native OS widgets, and incorporating GPU accelerated stuff. I'm hoping they get aura working better before it comes out in "stable" or I may have to junk Chrome too. Of course, if you weren't using "dev" then none of this probably applies, but I thought it was worth a mention. Begoon ^talk 16:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Chrome continuously updates itself so I don't pay attention to its version as it's usually transparent, unlike these Wikipedia changes. My problem has to do with certificate bugs but I'm not here to fix that. I've toggled the https preference now and it's back where it was before this unasked change was made to my preferences. Warden (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

@Jimbo, what is the advantage of this actually supposed to be? I've read m:HTTPS but it doesn't really shed any light. I'm sure 99.999% of users couldn't care less if the CIA are reading their pageview history even in the unlikely event they'd want to. That just leaves public wi-fi snooping, which for most people is an issue that will never arise, and even if it does then realistically how likely is it that an identity thief will want my Wikipedia logon? (Yes, you live in San Francisco with wi-fi access points all over, but the huge majority of the world doesn't and isn't likely to ever log on to Wikipedia over public wi-fi.) There may well be an advantage I'm not seeing, but it hasn't been explained, and at the moment this seems to be slowing everything down and breaking everyone's scripts and browser histories for no apparent gain. Mogism (talk) 09:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

you might be suprized what can be considered incriminating nowadays. I use https everywhere, so I used https already anyways. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 13:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
https prevent, among other things, password and username stealing (also called credential information theft or identity theft). This is common threat in school, airports, coffee shops and conferences, and is commonly used by criminals for attacking bank or shopping accounts. They gather a bunch of username/passwords on unrelated websites, and then try said username and password on sites they want to access. Most people use the same username and password for everything they do, which mean that most wikipedia accounts will also be their amazon login credentials and bank password. Looking at polls made in 2010, 7% of US households experienced identity theft. That maybe isn't a majority of the population (and we should all be happy about that), but it is still a large enough number to worry about. https helps a bit by denying attackers the chance of stealing loging information from people using the site. If you want to read more about it, here is a article that describe this in much more details. There are also concerns in making people *feel* safe using Wikipedia, and that include guarding people against the perceived threat of NSA. We do not want children or family members to be afraid of looking up important articles like child abuse, just because they feel threaten that "a scandal might come out" using unsecured browsing. Belorn (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
The concept of "incriminating" is outdated. I strongly urge people to read this proposal, made by federal contractors regarding Americans who in some way associate with Wikileaks. Or consider a case like Justin Carter, an ordinary kid having his life turned upside down because of a one-liner in online gaming chat that was intercepted and reported by an unnamed Canadian woman Etc. This is bin Laden's century, and the world is ruled by terrorists - sometimes on the streets, but usually in the government. Wnt (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Invention

Hello, Jimbo Wales. You are invited to join WikiProject Invention, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of inventions and invention-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Wondering what policy is on this

What exactly is policy on how to list the "main topic" of a disambiguation page? My specific issue is Albany, according to the talk page the traffic statistics on the three cities who have been listed as the "refers often to" is as follows- 38,000 for Albany, NY, 10,500 for Albany, GA and 7,000 for Albany, Western Australia (posted August 11th and I take no responsibility for accuracy). My concern is that Albany, NY with 3 times the traffic of the next highest, along with being the city with the most population of any on the list of Albanys, the largest population of a metro area on the list, and the Albany that more other Albanys are named for, not to mention being mentioned on tv and movies more often (and being used in filming more tv and movies); all this makes me believe Albany, NY would exclusively be the "main topic" should there be a need for a main topic. However, I acknowledge my bias and seek outside opinions.Camelbinky (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. Something is the primary topic if it is "more likely than all the other topics combined to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term" or "has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term". Neither appears to apply here. FWIW, considerably more of the other Albanys (including Albany, NY) are named for the historic name for Scotland (either directly or indirectly via the Dukes of Albany), than are named after Albany NY. See also the many many discussions linked at the top of Talk:Perth - any move you make is likely to provoke a very long and heated debate. Mogism (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Doing some very rough estimation, if Albany, New York is what people are looking for 2/3 of the time, then 1 in 3 people will be sent to the wrong article if they simply type "albany" in the search box and hit enter. At least with the current situation, everyone has to choose the article they want from the options on the disambiguation page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The hits for this month are - Albany NY 28,300 - Albany GA 8,400 - Albany NZ 7,000. There are other articles that get 1,000 or so; I haven't looked at every one. However, the main issue is that the disambiguation page itself only gets 2,500 hits, suggesting that only 5% or so of editors find their way to articles in that method, instead landing there directly from internal or external links. So I'd suggest that it doesn't actually really matter that much. Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Results of the investigation

Hello all,

We long time ago watches this story: http://www.webcitation.org/query?id=1377218089643919 (it was the real leader of the band Bravo). I recommend delete the article about this band. Only red links there, the more so. Checking: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Хавтан,_Евгений_Львович (link to his website is here).

Kind regards. - 2.94.150.72 (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC).

So what is your point exactly? Why cannot you edit the article (Bravo (band) I presume) or nominate it for deletion yourself? I am not sure Jimbo is an expert on Russian rock music. The talk page of the aricle or WP:Russia or Wikipedia:WikiProject Music (or even my talk page) are probably much better places to discuss the article. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Child protection policy

I am a strong supporter of our child protection policy, which is strictly enforced. The blog post I'm asked about is utterly dishonest it its portrayal of the facts. There is no truth at all to the claim that someone was silenced for being a whistleblower. Rather, a user was blocked after a long string of outrageous insulting and otherwise bad behavior having nothing at all to do with child protection. His long block log tells the story better than I can. He should have been permanently banned a very long time ago for disruption. To suddenly cast him as a hero in the service of children is beyond mistaken.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi Jimbo,

Have you read this blog yet? What is your opinion about the problems described there? Thanks. 50.174.76.70 (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, on the case page you can see what prompted the case and the result. The "whistle-blowing" referred to in the blog post (one should use that term lightly here) concerns an unrelated editor and is not what prompted the case, nor was it the primary driver of the decision.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course the whistle-blowing was the primary driver of the decision. Just a few days before the decision was made Kiefer.Wolfowitz was blocked for 48 hours over this comment. Of course Kiefer.Wolfowitz is blocked for the whistle-blowing. 50.174.76.70 (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually it was the block for this comment (admins only) that immediately preceded the case. Then again, there's so much to choose from in KW's block log (including two more blocks for unrelated matters during the case!) that your line of argument would support his ban being for just about anything. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

That comment is more nasty innuendo than whistle-blowing and there is a great deal of dishonesty in Kiefer's framing of those situations. Also, while such an incident may have influenced the decision (there was talk of a site-ban well before that incident) it was just one of many things he did over the duration of the case. Several comments about the actual opposing party in that case, where there were no real issues of child protection, likely played just as much of a role in how Arbitrators acted and there were many egregious comments he made about other people during the case with some additional taunting of the Arbs on the case talk page. Kiefer regrettably decided to go out shooting. For people to then whimper and whine that he is just being silenced for raising legitimate issues about da childrens is dishonest and exploitative. I expressed my opposition to a site ban several times, as well as expressing opposition to the very idea of a case, but I am not so foolish as to suggest there was not very good reason given for the ban.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipediocracy spam, check! Posted by someone lacking the courage to use their regular account, check! (Curious also that the blog criticizes anon editing, yet this person won't put their name - either real life or regular account - to it). Attempts to pass an editor who exhibited serious, extreme and unrepentant behavioural issues off as a martyr, check! Nicely done! Reso lute 01:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Spam? Okay, then maybe you could provide a legitimate reason why an adult user would want to contact at least three young boys off-wiki? I mean he wants to mentor them, fine, but why to do it off-wiki? Please tell me, I'm all ears.50.174.76.70 (talk) 02:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Also worthy of note is this blog putting forward the child protection policies of the Boy Scouts of America as a model for us. The core of that program was homophobia, and the program was a catastrophic failure that didn't prevent thousands of cases of child molestation but instead tried to minimize public knowledge of them. Check! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Please give me a break. What it has to do with homophobia? 50.174.76.70 (talk) 02:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be adept at trying to knock down strawmen while avoiding the key point. Perhaps this might help: This is the organization whose child protection policies you trumpet. Stellar journalism, guys. Really. The kind of stuff that will land you a job with Fox News or the Daily Mail. Reso lute 02:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You will get no break from me, so I will be more succinct: The BSA is a deeply homophobic organization with a long record of covering up child abuse. Why do you promote their failed "child protection policy"? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not not promote anybody's child protection policy. This post isn't about the Boy Scouts of America, and this post isn't about homophobia. This post is about kids who edit Wikipedia, and I still haven't gotten a response to my question which is: could you please provide a legitimate reason why an adult user would want to contact at least three young boys off-wiki? 50.174.76.70 (talk) 03:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Neither your question nor the blog post provide reliable information that would enable any of us to answer that question. Perhaps this hypothetical adult user is a pedophile, and perhaps they are someone sincerely mentoring younger editors. Just like pre-1985 scout leaders. But innuendo is an addictive drug to many. Several things are certain, though, regarding this blog post. No broad context is provided regarding the edit history of the "hero" of the tale, since that would take air out of the balloon. And also, the blog post promotes the failed child protection policies of a homophobic organization. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

you mean the one where the adults are never supposed to be one-on-one with any youth, at least 2 adults must be present, all adults go through background checks, etcetera? -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 02:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

We are not talking about whether a one paragraph summary of their standards "sounds good", but whether it is actually effective. Lawsuits have forced them to release old records which show their old failures. They refuse to release newer records, though lawsuits are bearing down on them. Until those records are released, I am extremely skeptical that they have solved their problems. Until this year, they routinely ousted innocent gay Scouts. They continue to oust innocent gay Scout leaders. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

the homophobia is an entirely different matter, or, at least, it should be. anyways, this discussion is wandering away from whatever focus it should have. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 03:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Putting homophobia aside boy-scouts are entirely different kettle of fish than wikipedia editors. Boy-scouts have direct physical contact with their adult supervisors, the adults are often in position of authority to the children, etc. Underaged wikipedians are forbidden to identify themselves as such, their physical whereabouts are hidden, all on-wiki activities are constantly monitored and opened for scrutiny. The different risks dictates diffeent level of precautions Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you really claiming that either the blog post or the original question had "focus"? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I dunno, if not, then maybe WP:NOTFORUM applies here... -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 03:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo has repeatedly made it clear that this talk page is a forum, a place to blow off steam and a place to discuss "edge" issues. So this is probably the page where that link applies least. If Jimmy Wales wants to end this discussion, I will comply. I think Wikipedia needs responsible criticism. I think Wikipedia needs to address contact and conduct between minors who edit and adults who edit. That being said, the hidden story behind this blog post is really the story of a talented editor going off the rails very catastrophically, and the post fails to contribute, in my opinion, to that necessary conversation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

If my post fails to contribute, it's only because the kids' privacy is involved, but I could provide some specifics. After off-wiki email exchange with his "mentor" one of the boys came to a strange conclusion. The boy said that his mentor "enjoys caning naughty boys". Do you believe it is a matter to be concerned about? 50.174.76.70 (talk) 04:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks for at least admitting you are Peter, Mr. Anon. That being said, given your history, you'll have to forgive me if I put zero stock in your good word. If you have actual evidence of actual wrongdoing, take it to the police. Otherwise, I have found that "Won't someone please think of the children?" is often a phrase used to try and mask ulterior motives. Reso lute 04:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

problem sherlock PD is in London, this IP is near San Fransico. It is more likely to be a WMF employee than PD. 62.49.31.176 (talk) 06:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't really care either way, but the IP could be a proxy and the above exchange does read like an acknowledgment of authorship. Of course, the IP user could also be lying. Again, don't really care.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

typical of this site bitching about the messenger rather than the message. Oops that is what the WO post was about, so no surprises that the wiki cultists would all do the same here. 62.49.31.176 (talk) 06:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

If we consider IRC not to be a part of Wikipedia then it is way safer for children than play on public playground, walk down the streets, attend schools or borrow books from a library (there might be an offensive graffiti or an indecent letter in the book. I do not have much of a positive experience with the Wiki-IRC and other Wikipedia-related internet forums like wikipediocracy but I am under impression that they are not ruled by Jimbo or Wikimedia. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for stating your opinion, but my questions were not answered. Let's forget about the blog and about the whistle-blower. I'd like to ask you to respond my own "yes" or "no" question please. After off-wiki email exchange with his "mentor" one of the boys makes a post on his mentor's user page stating that his mentor "enjoys caning naughty boys". "The mentor" quietly removes the post, but fails to issue a warning to the boy. Do you, Mr. Wales, believe it is something to be concerned about? Thank you. 50.174.76.70 (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, I am talking about kids, and simply ignoring my question doesn't look good I'm afraid. Maybe more information will help you to respond. "The mentor" has edited almost every article connected to corporal punishment, caning, spanking and so on. In particular "the mentor" has edited the following articles: Birching;Cane;Caning;Caning in Malaysia;Child discipline;Corporal punishment;Corporal punishment in the home;List of methods of torture;Murga punishment;Paddle (spanking);School corporal punishment;School discipline; School punishment ;Slippering;Spanking;Switch (corporal punishment).50.174.76.70 (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Rather than accusing me of ignoring you (after less than 2 hours) and perhaps rather than snarky innuendo, you could post links to things that I could actually assess. I'm sure you'll understand that I'm reluctant to trust vague reports from someone who doesn't even have the courage to log in and use a name of some sort. But to be clear: if your description is honest (which is impossible for me to determine) then yes, that's a matter of serious concern. Evidence please, rather than innuendo. I just checked the editor history of one of the articles you link to, and there are dozens of editors. Who are we talking about and what have they done and what proof do you have of it? Vague philosophical questions are useless.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

you could post links to things that I could actually assess. Whilst you did seem to know enough first thing this morning to label it as "a long string of outrageous insulting", you could ask ArbCom just how sure they are about that this evening. John lilburne (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't conflate two separate issues. The blocked editor was very much guilty of "a long string of outrageous insulting and otherwise bad behavior having nothing at all to do with child protection". So I'm not lamenting his block, as I think he should have been permanently blocked a long time ago. (Check his block log.) The entirely separate issue of another editor's behavior is an entirely separate issue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I've looked at the block log. All of this year has been various episodes related to the "spanker/caner" and the boys. Around xmas last year there was an issue concerning "inappropriate/creepy" comments made by someone towards women on IRC. You're an intelligent fellow does it not seem to you a "blame the messenger" ethos that has developed here which needs addressing? John lilburne (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not about "blaming the messenger". It's about not giving someone a free pass to abuse other people repeatedly just because they are making accusations of a serious nature.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it not? When I looked I didn't see a whole load of abuse as such. But it is no surprise if someone who reports suspicious or inappropriate behaviour gets forceful in a public forum. The problem here is that there is no effective communications channel where issues can be reported and timely feedback given. Emails to ArbCom may take weeks before being acknowledged (if at all) same with the WMF. Feedback/response should not be dependent on whether a group of people like the reporter or not. Whether the reporter is a pain in the arse or insulting is of no matter. Similar reports on flickr get a response back within 24hrs. There is no need for statements or drama being propagated into the public forums, no escalating name calling, etc etc. John lilburne (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, how do you feel about the fact that the editor who offered to "mentor" these underage WP participants and communicated with them privately is still allowed to edit Wikipedia with no restrictions and has posted here to your talk page numerous times? Cla68 (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know any details about it, and other than dripping with innuendo, your description doesn't tell me anything useful. Why do you put the word 'mentor' in scare quotes? In general, I think it can be perfectly appropriate for people to help teenagers learn to edit Wikipedia, and that's often going to take place via email. So if you are asking an abstract question is it ok for someone to mentor teens and communicate with them by email, well, yes of course, there's nothing inherently problematic about that. I assume though, that you're (as usual) trying to catch me in some kind of "gotcha" and you're withholding something you think is damaging. What is it?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, thank you for your response! My description is absolutely honest, and there are on-wiki links to prove my words, and I haven't told you everything yet, but I cannot post the links to your talk page because the 14-years old privacy is at stake. The boy provided his first and his last name on wiki, as well as the city he lives in. He has also uploaded an image of himself.50.174.76.70 (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Then use email instead of a very public forum.--MONGO 11:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Attention whores don't like email because it doesn't give them the ego hit that using a very public forum does. Reso lute 19:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

See what happens when someone uses a public forum to highlight another WP governance failing? Some WP hero hiding behind an anonymous account name insults them. No Jimbo, I wasn't trying to "gotcha", just trying to remind you that you're making it very obvious that you and the WMF aren't doing anything more than paying lip service to the child protection policy. Cla68 (talk) 23:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The child protection policy is strictly enforced.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, check your email. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I will.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, you mean you wouldn't have minded if your kid was getting emails from an anonymous stranger, especially if this stranger states something like that on his user page: "This user observed, received, and administered corporal punishment while he was a schoolboy"? 50.174.76.70 (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd need more information than that to make a decision. You've asked, implicitly, two questions here: "You mean you wouldn't have minded if your kid was getting emails from an anonymous stranger" and then another question about "especially if". First, no I don't mind if my teen gets emails from an anonymous stranger. That's what happens on the Internet all the time. People meet other people in online forums, mailing lists, wikis, blogs, etc. Any parent who thinks that their teenager isn't going to have contact with strangers online is really confused. Now, what if someone has that on their talk page - I think that's certainly weird, but I don't immediately jump to the conclusion that the person is a pedophile. What is the content of the email? But a more important question for us is not "what does Jimbo think, as a parent" but rather "what should we do about protecting children". And my view is that we should do what we already do: vigorously enforce the child protection policy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The 14-years old boy states that his "mentor" "enjoys caning naughty boys" before his "mentor" makes any significant edit to any article related to caning and before his mentor adds the weird user box to his user page. Do we need to know anything more about the content of the emails? 50.174.76.70 (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps both accounts are controlled by the same user (or some group of users) in order to make a point about our child protection policy? Count Iblis (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Far-fetched, but not impossible. Both would have to be controlled by the then 14 year-old since their real-life identity is easily confirmed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities. 50.174.76.70 (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

To really protect underage Wikipedia editors, we could set up a large number of fake accounts pretending to be underage children. Since there aren't all that many real child editors here, the number of fake child accounts could easily vastly outnumber the number of real child accounts. Then a pedophile attempting to groom a child here, would almost always end up contacting a fake child, triggering an alert. Of course, it won't be long before it becomes widely known that most accounts pretending to be child editors are fake accounts, but then that would deter a pedophile from even trying to make improper contact with a child here. Count Iblis (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The Internet! Where the men are boys, the women are men and the boys are FBI agents - David Gerard (talk) 10:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what you think about this

The admin who will be closing the Manning page-title debate has listed you as voting to support the current title, even though you never actually voted. This is fine in and of itself, as everyone's opinions should count in discussions like these. The problem is that while 3 other users have voiced support for moving the page back, the same admin who counted your user-talk-page opinion as a full-fledged vote has listed these other 3 as "out of process supports" and said that since they didn't actually vote, they will not be taken into consideration when it comes to the final result of the page-name. It seems clear to me that you wish your opinion to be given equal, rather than extra, weight here. Do you find this fair? Joefromrandb (talk) 05:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Because !voting is, well, not voting, I think it's fine to include my views - the actual count doesn't really determine the answer. I don't know what the other 3 users said, so I'm not sure how their comments should be treated. I suppose it would make more sense to me to move me to "out of process oppose" since I didn't really join the process. But it doesn't seem like it really matters all that much, so I'd mostly like there to be more focus on the content of the debate rather than proceduralism.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

As I have commented in response to this concern on my talk page, it is premature. I have not assigned any weight to anything yet, and when the time does come for 'assigning weight', I will be one member of a three-admin panel to consider the issue. bd2412 T 11:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Who are the other two administrators? --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

User:BOZ and User:Kww. Their names were presented to me as options when a three-admin panel was suggest on the WP:ANI closure page; so I asked, and they agreed to help. bd2412 T 12:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

User:BD2412, In that discussion that you linked to, you wrote "I interpret WP:BRD as requiring a consensus in favor of a title different than the one that existed yesterday, in order for such a change to be effected." — Which title is "the one that existed yesterday"? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Kww is quite experienced at closing RfC's, and judging consensus, and the three-admin panel is really the way to go with large RfC's... it's pretty much standard actually... as far as the title goes, the status quo is whatever the title was before the editor boldly changed it. I feel the system of BRD is working as intended, an editor boldly changed something, and now, we are discussing whether or not to keep the change, thereby preventing any possible edit warring or other disputes over it. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 14:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

User:BD2412, Please note that I would still like to hear from you regarding my last message since you are a closing administrator. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

My sandbox is just that, a sandbox; it is a collection of notes sketching out issues that I have not fully thought through. If I fail to immediately notice an editor having switched their !vote, it is helpful to bring that to my attention (although I will certainly review the count very closely once the discussion closes), but otherwise the contents of that page are of no moment to the discussion. Bear in mind, in most instances, the closing administrator does not even look at the discussion being closed until the discussion is complete. In this case, the number of participants and the number of issues being raised makes it worth taking some broad notes in advance of the more intense deliberation which will occur after closure. bd2412 T 15:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

User:BD2412, Since your above message doesn't seem to fit here, did you mistakenly post it here instead of somewhere else? --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

My above message is in answer to your question. I'm afraid it's all the answer I can give you. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps BD2412 has misunderstood Bob K31416's question. It's clear from the timestamps that "the one that existed yesterday" is "Bradley Manning". – Smyth\^talk 20:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, This is starting to look like there's going to be a closing fiasco like the one that occurred with the "verifiability, not truth" RfC. I hope not. As you pointed out back then, there was a super majority consensus for removing "verifiability, not truth" that the three closers interpreted as no consensus. In this case, it would be a matter of the closers deciding what title should be kept if there is no consensus, the new one Chelsea Manning, or the previous long-standing one Bradley Manning. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

That's the trick, though - the term majority, in this context, has no relevance. The number of editors on one side of the issue or another is relevant, certainly, but the side with fewer editors will prevail if the strength of their arguments is the greater. And that's why we have three admins, experienced and respected all, who will read the comments and the discussions, judge their merit, and determine where consensus lies. As for a no consensus close - obviously, a no consensus close will default to the wrong title. And editors will shout from the hills that there was indeed consensus for their preferred version, and lots of good people will have their feelings hurt, and then we will move on. If we can't trust these admins to close, then who? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, a "no consensus" would default to "Bradley Manning", rather than the wrong title. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I was referring to The Wrong Version. Which name is the wrong version is precisely what is under debate. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

That went right over my head (certainly not difficult to do). I regretted that post almost instantly, but I had just gotten fed up with a handful of editors (the ones declaring "case closed", "we will absolutely not be moving it back", ect.). It seemed to me that you were using Jimbo's page to grandstand for a title-change. Had I realized that you meant the proverbial wrong version rather than the actual wrong version, I wouldn't have responded in that fashion. Sorry about the misunderstanding. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Where does Project Qworty stand these days?

Project Qworty looks to have been abandoned before all the necessary work has been completed.

The people who were trashed on wikipedia by Robert Clark Young deserve to have their articles checked for accuracy, don't you think? Project Qworty Update (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).. Reso lute 22:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

"Gotcha" update

Jimbo, I hope you won't dismiss this as a "gotcha" attempt. Many of us readers of JimboTalk are actually interested in what you have to say about some of the issues that have been raised, but seem to quietly fade away without any real resolution. So, here goes!

Do you still stand behind your statement that "Socialtext no longer exists"? If so, what do you make of this impostor website?
Were you able to chat with Richard Stromback about how it appears he (or an agent acting on his behalf) has managed to manipulate Wikipedia content to serve his messaging goals? If so, what did he have to say?
Did you contact Wikibilim to find out why a portrait of Karim Massimov appears on all of their site's pages? If so, what did they have to say?
This is a new one, not a follow-up. You serve as an outside advisor to Sunlight Foundation. Many of the financial supporters of the Sunlight Foundation are also financial supporters of the Wikimedia Foundation. Do you have any comment about the following Wikipedia editors: User:Paulblumenthal, User:Stereogab, User:Ebankey, User:96.231.127.110, User:71.191.1.8, User:68.50.74.96, or User:69.244.92.218? Do you think it might be useful to "advise" the Sunlight Foundation about your "bright line rule"?

Looking forward to your responses. Promise, no "gotcha" here. - 2001:558:1400:10:C0FA:EA90:8D88:5AAF (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Socialtext no longer exists as a company because it was acquired.

Rich Stromback said that he knew nothing about it. Perhaps you'd better ask him directly yourself if you'd like more information than that.

I haven't contacted Wikibilim yet. My wife, as you may know, just had a baby.

I have no comment about those editors, have not reviewed their contributions, and know nothing about it. I have never advised Sunlight Foundation about Wikipedia editing at all, nor do I intend to start now. If you think there's a problem, then please take it up in the appropriate venues.

You say there is no 'gotcha' here but now it's your turn to answer some questions. Who are you? Why are you going through news reports looking for anyone I happen to know and looking for conflict of interest editing and asking me about it here? What is your motive? Why don't you just get the point. If you are hoping to show that I condone conflict of interest editing if it is done by someone I know, that's total bullshit. I never condone it under any circumstances. I also don't make it the first thing that I say when I meet people. Indeed, I don't bring it up at all in social settings or professional settings unless I'm specifically asked for advice about it. And when I'm asked for advice, I'm 100% firm and consistent. Is that answer the one you were hoping for? Of course not. You're looking to smear me, as usual.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

"You're looking to smear me, as usual." Mr Wales: there is more than one person who is interested in your answers. 62.74.128.2 (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

"There is more than one person who is interested in your answers." Yes, probably a few IP hopping malcontents who refuse to give their names and congregate off-wiki. Time to drop the stick here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

"The Foundation does not require editors to register with a project. Anyone can edit without logging in with a username..." I don't want to speak for 2001:558:1400:10:C0FA:EA90:8D88:5AAF, but it appears that the motive is to try to resolve the cognitive dissonance that some of your seemingly contradictory beliefs and actions are causing for him or her. You have to admit, if we had such a "quacks like a duck" scenario similar to the editing related to Mr. Stromback, but the subject was not a drinking buddy of the founder of the Wikimedia Foundation, it's likely that more would have been done to restrict and roll back the editing, to preserve Wikipedia's NPOV. I don't know if others believe that Rich Stromback knew nothing about this or this or this, but given what we all know about the patterns of COI editors on Wikipedia, it defies all conceivable logic to think that Stromback didn't know anything at all about those edits. You seem to accept Stromback at his word, but you publicly criticized Bell Pottinger's "ethical blindness". That's why there are so many questions based on your mixed signals. - 2001:558:1400:10:F92D:8ADF:AE1E:8DD8 (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Time to flog those dead horses again I see...--ukexpat (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I can answer two of those questions. Socialtext no longer exists as a company, which is clearly what Jimbo meant when he said "Socialtext no longer exists, and I don't know anyone at the company that acquired them". Karim Massimov is the patron of Wikibilim, which is not news. Formerip (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, you can answer one of those questions incorrectly, given that the California Secretary of State's list of business entities shows that Entity C2505424 (Socialtext, Inc.) is marked as "ACTIVE" through Tuesday, August 27, 2013. As for Massimov being the patron of Wikibilim, we know! We're curious why Jimbo said "we totally reject the possibility of state control over the content of Wikipedia in any language", yet promised $5,000 of his own money to a program dedicated to the content of Wikipedia, that is primarily run with state-controlled money. That may not strike you as a matter of concern, but other intelligent people are most definitely concerned about it. - 2001:558:1400:10:C0FA:EA90:8D88:5AAF (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Crikey, it didn't take you long to break your "no gotcha" promise.

On the first point, my guess is that either that either that database doesn't get updated on a daily cycle or Jimbo has revealed his shocking ignorance of California companies law. Either way, I don't see any reason to suppose it's a big deal.

On the second, I'll confess to not being very concerned about Wikibilim, based on what I know. But why are you asking questions if you already know the answers? You're concerned? Fine. Set a reminder on your phone and state your case here every time it goes off. Just do it without the innuendo and nonsense. Formerip (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, Formerip, you seem to be the one desperate to turn this into a "gotcha" opportunity, given your really hare-brained explanations for how Socialtext just might not exist as a company, even though they have a fully operational website, it's labeled in the footer as "© 2013 Socialtext, Inc.", it's listed in the California database of business entities, in which data is updated every Wednesday and Saturday morning, and that all Dissolutions and Surrenders filed prior to August 19 have been processed. Why are you so frantically clinging to the notion that Socialtext doesn't exist as a company? What sort of "gotcha" are you hoping will be sprung on us? If Socialtext does still exist as a company, then "it's a big deal" because Jimmy Wales served on its board of directors. One would hope that would give him at least a modicum of understanding of California companies law. It also becomes a "big deal" to consider the fact that Wales sits on the board of directors of the Wikimedia Foundation, which is situated in California. If Wales is so easily wrong about the very existence of a company on whose board of directors he recently served, can we reliably trust in anything he says about organizations which he leads? I can assure you, if I were ever asked about any entity on which I've served its board of directors, I could tell you with 100% confidence whether or not that entity still "exists". Jimmy Wales said that "Socialtext no longer exists". It is a completely bizarre and erroneous statement to make, unless there is some (probably convoluted) explanation for what he meant to say. Maybe we can wait for him to answer, before his supporters try to jump in and deflect for him? - 2001:558:1400:10:C0FA:EA90:8D88:5AAF (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Come on, Columbo, you can keep your cool better than that.

I don't really care whether Socialtext exists as a company. It isn't interesting. It was subject to an acquisition last year, according to its WP article. I don't see how its bizarre to think of it as no longer existing. It may be wrong, but I'm not a company lawyer. What I do think is bizarre is caring so much. Formerip (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Socialtext no longer exists as a separate company under the ordinary understanding of the term. It was acquired by another company. It might also be worthwhile to note that it was acquired *years* after I left the board of directors. (I left in 2008. The company was acquired in 2012.) Is the new company keeping the company registration up for some reason? I have no idea, nor is it in any way important. Nor does me not knowing suggest that I'm somehow deficient in the understanding of corporate law necessary to serve as a member of a board of directors. Those looking for a conflict of interest may find it amusing to note that the total value of my stock options earned as a board member netted me a grand total of around a dollar. This was not a particularly successful exit for the company. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Not only is the attempt at a "gotcha" transparent, but the gotcha used is absurd. I should step back and say I have no experience with California's system, but in New York, which I imagine is not so very different, the Secretary of State is not some all-knowing automatic updater of a company's actual status. Rather, if you want to go "inactive", you either have to affirmatively file a certificate of dissolution under BCL §1003 and pay a $60 fee to file it, or simply stop paying your corporate franchise taxes, some time after which your active status will lapse. Ridiculous.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Nathan Van Wilkins, rampage killer of zero persons

Nathan Van Wilkins is currently in jail awaiting trial on charges of shooting 18 people in Alabama just over a year ago. Nathan Van Wilkins is currently a red link (but posting this here may change that). If someone were to write Nathan Van Wilkins, I would probably nominate it for deletion on the basis that he is known only for that single event (i.e., WP:BLP1E). Note that none of the people alleged to have been shot by Wilkins died. This has not prevented Wilkins from being added to List of rampage killers: Americas.

Jimbo, it is nearly to impossible to keep track of all the places where living people can be maligned on WP, but articles like this are almost attractive nuisances. Many of WP's articles on mass murder and serial killers border on glorifying the details of these horrific crimes. There is a list of rampage killers for each of five regions, sortable by number of people killed or injured. Each of them includes at least one entry where no persons were killed. I am not suggesting that we do not have articles on significant events, but can we show a little bit of editorial discretion and decide at least that we do not need to have lists of rampage killers on WP? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems clear that someone who didn't kill anyone shouldn't be on any list of killers. The desciption "rampage" killer seems less neutral than perhaps "mass" applied to those who killed more than five people. And perhaps there is a useful distinction between people who kill lots of other people in a single day, and those who do so over time, who are commonly called "serial" killers. I haven't checked, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility that someone who shot 18 people might be notable. BLP1E is a good tool, but some people are truly notable for essentially a single event. Sara Jane Moore is a good example. She didn't kill anyone either, although she tried. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Cullen328, there will be some people in those lists who are notable, but my issue is with the lists themselves. You won't be surprised to learn that someone removed Nathan Van Wilkins and other non-killers from the list of "rampage killers" after I started this topic, but you should be surprised to learn that the removal was reverted. Despite being "the sum of human knowledge" there is much that we deliberately exclude with our notability guidelines, BLP policy, and other editorial considerations. I think we can live without these lists. Let's leave this for actual scholars of these types of crimes. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The 'List of rampage killers: Americas' is yet another example of the way that WP:BLP policy is routinely grossly violated by list-obsessed contributors. 12 of the 120 individuals named are listed as 'arrested' - which is to say that the article describes non-convicted individuals as 'rampage killers'. Can anyone give a legitimate reason why the article shouldn't simply be blanked until such time as it complies with policy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think we can live without these lists. - I think not, instead. What we should push is for such content to be semiprotected permanently and well watchlisted. I'll add it to my watchlist. If you want the list deleted, DC, anyway AfD is that-a-way. Dancing the drama dance every week on Jimbo talk page helps your ego, no doubt, and possibly keeps the WO forums bubbly: but it doesn't really help your cause. Andy: Blanking may be a last-resort, but just trimming the problematic entries should be enough. Thank you for doing that. --cyclopia ^speak! 13:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

"trimming the problematic entries should be enough". Nope. Not while the endless crass violations of WP:BLP policy (and libel/sub judice laws etc) go on. It shouldn't be necessary for contributors to have to endlessly monitor articles for such violations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

DC is smart enough to know that there is no chance of a deletion, so creating drama is his only real avenue. That said, there are points worthy of consideration here. First off, if consensus is to retain shootings where nobody died, then the article needs renaming to something like List of rampage shooters. Second, I certainly agree with Andy that non-convicted people should be removed. I vehemently disagree with blanking as a viable option. Especially given the number of citations. As to the "glorification" of crimes, that is a societal problem DC, not just Wikipedia. Follow along with the Luka Magnotta case here in Canada for an example. Reso lute 13:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It shouldn't be necessary for contributors to have to endlessly monitor articles for such violations. - How? Even if tomorrow we forbid every BLP-related entry on WP, we should still endlessly monitor for such violations. Constant monitoring is what watchlists and NPP are for. It's in the nature of WP to require such monitoring. Granted, default pending changes on such articles would help a lot. --cyclopia ^speak! 13:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at the history of those lists - IP editors are not the real issue. Pending changes doesn't restrict established users from violating policy or making poor editorial decisions (although it should be enabled for every BLP and for any list article that has BLP implications). Take this as a request for any passing admin to turn on pending changes for these articles. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I have strongly opposed Pending Changes because it creates a class of privileged editors based on admin politics, and effectively prohibits even longstanding editors from getting changes through whenever an IP happens to edit first. We don't need it for every BLP article; we've gotten along fine without them. Critics of Wikipedia have focused on a tiny number of incidents in which, once anyone noticed, the problem was soon fixed. It slows and confuses article editing, rightfully deters new editors from becoming interested, undermines the philosophy of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia anyone can edit and contributes to the corruption of its administration as a means of enforcing POV. Wnt (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I will never understand why people think it does my ego good to propose things on Jimbo's page only to be met with insults, accusations, and inaction. Very occasionally enough people get the point and things change a just little tiny bit for the better, but I'm not doing this because I enjoy being berated. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Probably because the only thing you do is run to Jimbo. Tell me, why haven't you started a fresh discussion on the relevant article talk pages? Why not start an RFC? Nothing you argue about here will change absent those actions, so why is it that you always seek to sidestep process? You should know as well as anyone that posting on Jimbo's talk page is often little more effective than making loud screaming noises. The real discussions are held elsewhere. Reso lute 14:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I will never understand why people think it does my ego good to propose things on Jimbo's page only to be met with insults, accusations, and inaction. See martyr complex. The more you lament here (a completely useless venue for this aim, but watched by many), the more you can feel nemo propheta in patria and tell your friends "I told the leader of Wikipedia, but he won't listen!" --cyclopia ^speak! 14:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

If we're done talking about me, perhaps my fan club can cede the floor to editors interested in discussing the issue raised? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec) He may have a point that the list has a pretty arbitrary definition: 6 dead or 10 dead+injured or 12 injured, provided that four of the deaths (or in the last of these, presumably four of the attempted murders?) occurred in a 'rather short period'. Now there are a lot of people on Wikipedia who believe in editorial judgment, but I tend to be skeptical: when dealing with crowdsourced text, it's hard to agree on that sort of judgment for long. Still, it isn't really unreasonable to list attempted rampage killers in the list... with a different title. But what? You could say "rampage killers and attempted rampage killers", but that would include the 'testicle bomber' since he tried to blow up a plane. Maybe "rampage attempted killers"? It's just tough English. I went through something very similar recently writing List of jailbreaks by al-Qaida affiliates, in which it makes sense to list major attacks even if no one got away, but fortunately the common English usage of "jailbreak" doesn't firmly exclude attempts. Wnt (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

perhaps my fan club can cede the floor to editors interested in discussing the issue raised? - Given that it is totally pointless to discuss the issue you raised here, I feel the real issue is your eternal badgering on this talk page. You're free to show us your good faith and prove us wrong by actually raising an AfD and/or starting a discussion on an appropriate venue where a real decision can be taken. --cyclopia ^speak! 15:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to start a new thread, then, instead of derailing this one. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

For someone who is used to dissect and criticize at length editors on and off wiki, you have a peculiarly thin skin when you are subject to some criticism. No derailing here: you started a discussion, I and others argue this discussion shouldn't be here, and that is just drama mongering. It's excellently on topic.--cyclopia ^speak! 15:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not thin-skinned, just tired of you, Wnt, Resolute, and Count Iblis polluting my attempts to have serious discussions with your accusations, weird Scientology conspiracy theories, and other nonsense. I've made a new subthread for editors who want to discuss the message instead of the messenger. Please keep your comments about the appropriateness of this discussion up here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll be blunt. If you're only response is to come here, then you aren't trying to have a serious discussion. However, if you started the discussion on that article that Neutron did, then came here asking for input, that would be a different case. My problem with your style is not so much what you say as it is the fact that your entire schtick is to scream into the wind as loud as you can and hope someone else does the work for you. It is a great system for you, I'll admit. Either you get the rare instance (such as here) where people who do try to maintain the 'pedia start that discussion, or nothing happens and you get to run back and play with that aforementioned martyr complex. Reso lute 17:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Do the work for me? I'm here to suggest that the lists are deleted en masse through an act of editorial discretion. I'm not asking people to fix them - I'm pointing out the problems that will continue so long as they exist. "More people watchlisting them" is a worthless platitude and everyone knows that by now. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

If deletion is your aim, then you most certainly are not interested in serious discussion. Reso lute 22:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why you mentioned me on your list above, D.C., because as I said, you have something of a point, and I thought I gave a constructive response on this issue. Wnt (talk) 03:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Slightly surprised (but not that surprised given the drama fairies that frequent this page) that this has been "brought to Jimbo's attention". We have plenty of guidelines and policies in place to stop this kind of rubbish, we just need to enforce them. I suggest editors who spend too much time lurking here actually do something about the BLP issues at the various crap articles rather than waste time here. If you feel something violates WP:BLP, delete it, start a discussion on the talk page, get over it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

DC, if you think these lists should be deleted, there's a place to request that. If you think they should be under pending changes, there's a place to request that, too. If you think there are BLP violations in them that need addressing, there's a place to bring that up too, even aside from the article talk pages! Have those discussions in the proper venues, and we'll see what the community thinks. Keep running "straight to Jimbo", without even any attempt to do so, and yes, you'll keep irritating people. A mass deletion of articles is not at "editorial discretion", it needs consensus. There are places to gauge whether there is consensus to do so. This isn't the place. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

If you can't see the difference between discussing the need for a type of article (lists of killers) versus putting individual articles up for deletion, you will probably be one of the people that I will continue to annoy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

One of very many it would appear. And quite what Jimbo has to do with any of this is beyond most of us. Why not try to be pro-active and start an RFC or similar, instead of asking Jimbo his personal opinion? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I respect Jimbo's judgment in these areas. I'd like to know what he thinks before I take this any further. That's why I posted on his talk page. Also I have some kind of martyr complex, apparently, even though I didn't know I was supposed to feel like a martyr. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, you could have emailed him I suppose. This way it looks like his opinion would be important than anyone else's, which, obviously, it isn't. Try getting a community discussion and some consensus, sounds odd I know, but probably the way ahead. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

This section is for actual discussion of "Rampage killers" lists

The zero-death "killers" have been re-reverted out of List of rampage killers: Americas (not by me, though I support the removal.) I have started a discussion at the talk page there. I also agree there are other problems with this series of articles, but this one is easiest to fix, especially if there are an increased number of "eyes" on this article. There really seems to be only one editor who believes that people who didn't kill anyone should be listed as "killers." Neutron (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's one issue addressed on one list. There is also the issue of people appearing in these lists that have not been convicted of these crimes (i.e., they may be killers, but that has yet to be proven in court). There are four more lists with the same problems for other regions of the world. Then we have List of rampage killers: Workplace killings, List of rampage killers: School massacres, and three lists of familicides. I don't think we need these lists. If they are to remain here, they need to be put under pending changes and monitored closely by editors with knowledge of BLP policy. That obviously hasn't been happening, so we would anyone think that it would happen in the future? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I missed List of rampage killers: Home intruders and the portal-like List of rampage killers. Here's a funny thing - did you know that we don't have an article called "Rampage killer"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the most obvious WP:BLP violations from 'List of rampage killers: Americas' - though without checking every source, I can't guarantee that there aren't more. I'm getting heartily sick of having to clear up the mess left by such violations though, and frankly see little point in doing so as long as those responsible aren't held accountable. Maybe it is time for the WMF to step in, and make it clear that adding such material is contrary to the Wikipedia Terms of Use, and that those violating WP:BLP in such a manner will be blocked from editing. It seems self-evident that the WMF's pleas for more responsibility concerning BLP policy has had little effect so far. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

DC, I think it's better to directly address one issue on one page (on the article and/or its talk page) than to directly address no issues on no pages. But thank you for calling the issue(s) to the attention of those editors who have decided to actually do something about it, however limited that has been in the first few hours after the issue appeared here. Neutron (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

If there's a BLP issue, deal with it promptly, cite it or delete it. Don't come whinging at Jimbo's page. It's very straightforward. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

All "rampage killers" lists now up for deletion

Jimbo, if you have any thoughts on this, feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rampage killers. The main editor's comments on the talk page of the main list have convinced me that these lists were assembled based on original research and without regard to WP:BLP. See, for example, the discussion prompted by this thread. I would suggest that it would be wise to review all of the articles created by this user, User:Lord Gøn. There are BLP issues. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP and subject welfare

Somebody said recently that our only BLP concern is that we protect ourselves from being sued; that how a Wikipedia BLP affects its subject is of no concern to Wikipedia, except that we shouldn't publish anything that puts editors or the project at risk. I've heard this said before.

I've also recently heard others say we may not allow a BLP subject's (or their family's) feelings to influence our editorial choices. And I've heard this before too.

I haven't followed the discussions around the creation and development of WP:BLP, so I was wondering if you can tell me whether the above views accurately reflect the spirit of WP:BLP? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

"[O]ur only BLP concern is that we protect ourselves from being sued" Liability is important, but it is absolutely not our only concern or we wouldn't be writing biographies of living persons at all. The living persons themselves is also very important.

"[H]ow a Wikipedia BLP affects a subject is of no concern to Wikipedia". There is a history of why we have a BLP policy. Part of the reason for our policy is exactly out of concern for "how a Wikipedia BLP affects a subject".

"[E]xcept that we shouldn't publish anything that puts editors or the project at risk." We shouldn't publish anything that puts anyone at all at risk. Information need not be positive to be included but encyclopedic value is not investigative journalism and speculation is only included if it is notable and sourced per standards and is not undue weight.

"[W]e may not allow a BLP subject's (or their family's) feelings to influence our editorial choices." Why not? We are aren't transcription monkeys or computer programs that can't think, feel or understand. A subjects wishes may actually have more weight in some cases, that is why we use OTRS for verification. The subject or families feelings may unclude a number of legal rights that they retain so, we should never blindly ignore them. I recently did some looking through the BLP talk page archive and I think the main spirit of the project and the policies that arose from it are about respecting individual in more ways than just their legal rights. This really is the encyclopedia that everyone can write, but if they don't want to write in the article space itself, the subject may still ( and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it) contact an editor and make requests to them for assistance in understanding the article and how it can be fixed in the best possible way. Sometimes editors forget that articles about living persons change. They should change. People change. They do. They may not change their heart (there is a whole philosophical discussion we can just avoid there) but their clothing style changes. Their appearance changes. They gain more living and therefore more pertinent information to expand the article etc.. The fine line between a COI editor and their BLP article on Wikipedia is wide enough for a casual stroll. Don't panic. Anthonyhcole, what are your own perceptions of BLP policy?--Mark Miller (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we agree, at least on the matter of concern for our subjects' welfare, beyond how their welfare affects our welfare. I'm not sure how common our view is, though. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

So long as what we are saying is verifiable and neutral, I don't think extraordinary measures are needed. We don't want to be overtly friendly to the subjects of our BLPs, because in many cases their notability is due to things they would rather we not mention, e.g. Michael Vick and his animal welfare issues. Being very strict about sourcing prevents most of the problems, and watching NPOV with a close eye is clearly important, but we don't want to be building shrines or Facebook pages. 166.147.88.39 (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Why can't we be friendly to the subject? I don't know what you perceive as "overly" but we're not social scientists. We don't have to be neutral with the person. We can tell them what we can do, what they can do and listen to what they want. Even information that can't be verified can be taken directly from the source if its simple and straight forward like name, DOB or sexual preference, but if the subject has issue with something we don't have to be stand offish. We can treat them like real people. 166.147.88.39, I think you miss the point in that you see a subject by a singular notoriety and the subject you refer to is actually a notable figure without that controversy.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

We don't have to be neutral about the Holodomor either, but we choose to be. Neutrality is an important facet of why Wikipedia is not just another place for people to spout their opinions. Take figures like Barack Obama or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - many people consider one or the other to be kind of a problem, but there are also people who think that one or the other is the best thing since sliced bread. When we start thinking in terms of "how do we help this person" and away from "these are the relevant facts" we're moving away from WP:NPOV and away from writing an encyclopedia. We choose to be careful about what facts are relevant, especially with non-public figures, but whitewashing things is censorship and that's explicitly rejected. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

So the Chelsea Manning RM discussion has been closed and the article renamed Bradley Manning. The closing admins conclude that we don't need to apply WP:BLP to avoid harming the subject because Manning knows that some media will continue to call her "Bradley".

We have chosen to name the article incorrectly (it is undeniable that Manning has changed her name) and to insult Manning. Leaving aside the factual accuracy issue, returning to my initial point Jimbo, does the fact that calling Manning "Bradley" is an insult matter? Should the fact the title insults a BLP subject influence our naming choice in any way? A great many of the people who swarmed to that article when it was changed to Chelsea Manning think insulting our subject is of no concern. I'd very much Like to hear your thoughts on the question. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Might need to extend thread to Monday: I am not sure Jimbo has time to answer this complex issue over the weekend. The renaming as "Bradley Manning" will appease the angry mob, now that the lawyer announced how Manning is expecting the name "Bradley" to appear in historical texts about the trial and related incidents. I think it lets Wikipedia reduce a very contentious debate, when the word "transphobia" was just added to the Oxford English Dictionary within the past 3 months. It makes we wonder if Manning was wise enough to see a "compromise" in allowing some use of "Bradley" would reduce quarrels about the case. You never know who might be an "old soul" in the world. A wise friend once reminded me, "The veneer of civilization is very thin" and an angry mob can distract our user attention from numerous other important issues. -Wikid77 12:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

No. He's ignoring me. And he'll ignore this question forever. Below he's making a very clear distinction between doing physical harm to a subject and just hurting their feelings by insulting and humiliating them. He obviously doesn't think it matters in the least if we insult or degrade our subjects (or our readers if you take into account his position on the gratuitous use of images in Muhammad) - so long as there's no risk that they may sue us. He's a "sticks and stones" kind of guy. And that explains a lot about the culture of contempt on this project. Watch. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually not surprised. If he sets a precedent of getting involved in content disputes, it becomes Jimbopedia and that was never the intent. He doesn't want to be seen as an appeals court for editors that are unsatisfied with the latest community decision. My impression over the years is that Jimbo has perfected the zen of wikidetachment and knows that he can't respond to everything. This is, in the end, a content dispute. It has some very nasty problems, but they don't change the nature of the beast. The confusion about the BLP and the civility issues between editors are worth addressing, in my opinion, and bringing up these topics in the agenda at various talks and discussions and other "soft power" tools available to Jimbo might be worthwhile, but invoking the "hard power" in a content dispute is unsurprisingly avoided like the plague. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You've misread me. I'm not proposing the use of hard power or intervention in a content dispute. I'm asking Jimbo about the philosophy of this project: about our indifference to the welfare of our subjects - except when harm to them puts us at risk; and whether hurting just the feelings of our subjects (not the bodies, not "real" violence, just insults and humiliation) is something we try to avoid - if we can do so without impeding our mission. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Am I violating BLP?

It is always going to be acceptable to, at a very minimum, discuss on the talk page a criminal allegation that is being clearly reported on by a New York Times blog.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I left the following talk page comment at Talk:Asaram Bapu. Surprisingly, when I checked the page a few hours later, I saw that my comment had been partly redacted as violating BLP. I say surprisingly, because as an active editor (and admin in good standing) a few years back I would not have suspected so, and as a supporter and past enforcer of BLP policies I definitely would not intend to cross that line.

So can experienced editors here review my comment (esp the redacted portion) and let me know if my understanding is outdated and perhaps I should simply stay away from biographies as an occasional IP editor?

Note: I understand that inclusion of the allegations on the article is something to be discussed in light of WP:DUE, WP:BLP and WP:RECENTISM (a discussion I'll leave to other regular editors since I have limited time and minimal interest in the article subject); my question here is simply whether even raising the issue on talk page as I did (referencing NYT and in what I would consider measured language) is now verboten. Thanks. 50.148.126.65 (talk) 00:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

No it's not a BLP violation considering this is all over the news: [2], IRWolfie- (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Please don't encourage them. Much text added to Asaram Bapu (or various talk pages, now the article is protected) has consisted of poorly written and off-the-wall attacks. Of course a moderate mention of significant events can occur, but no one with a grasp of how articles are written cares sufficiently to work on the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Bah. Poorly-written off-the-wall attacks are never a good thing, of course. But it seems like the subject of the article has a citation (if that's the correct legal term) for rape and that information, which probably ought to belong in the article, is being refactored from the talk page (?). Formerip (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

BLP applies everywhere including talkpages. But the information was not redacted completely. The external link was still left to the NYT blog so that the allegations could still be seen. That information could later be added to the article space if consensus developed under BLP and RS to allow its use on Wikipedia. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

So your alternative is, instead of weighing in yourself to ensure neutral coverage is to quietly suppress information about the very serious criminal allegations against this person and actively discourage other editors from working on it (remember now that what 50.* has said is not a BLP violation)? 50.* has raised a reasonable point, and there is no reason he should not be treated reasonably so that the actual article can be improved, IRWolfie- (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

too bad it's under goldlock... I like PC becuase it can allow somne productive edits, but still, the edit rate was too high for pc/2 anyways.-- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 03:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Call me an idiot, but I fail to see how noting that an individual has been accused of or alleged to rape someone (with a somewhat reliable, mainstream source) is a BLP violation on the part of the IP. For article use I'd hold off on it until he was tried (in which case it would be hard to miss), but if main stream source publish these accusations and the IP points to them in a good faith attempt to help improve the article, it might be worth noticing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Considering this is so much in the public sphere, what are we achieving by not mentioning it? Here is a parallel case with very similar effects but perhaps more notable in the west: [3], IRWolfie- (talk) 10:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

50.x.x.x is wrong, the police has not made any allegations against him, the allegations are being made by the parents of the girl. The judge just wants to make him a few little questions about what he did in a certain day at a certain hour, to clear up the matter and take a decision. He is being arrested only because he failed to show at the court after being required by a judge. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

IP 50 is reporting exactly what the source reports. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Unrelated topic, but... why the police can't enter his ashram? Is police forbidden from entering ashrams, like European universities? Our article doesn't say anything about it. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Create subarticle "Police investigation of Asaram Bapu": So that will allow coverage of months/years of police work in regard to Asaram Bapu and his prior actions in other towns, without mentioning "rape" in title, nor overwhelming the main BLP article with massive wp:UNDUE detailed text about the related incidents which have been reported for months but with questionable evidence and not decided in court. -Wikid77 12:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not acceptable. Discussion is still being removed. Even my comment about the low reliability of the blog! I hope this changes when he is questioned and the judge issues an official statement. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, Thanks for your, and other editors', feedback, which broadly matches what I would have thought. And yet... my original post, pertinent analysis by Enric, proposed article text by Irwolfie etc have again been refactored as violating BLP. 50.148.126.65 (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I suggest asking Bbb23. I note that the consensus here is generally that this is not a violation of BLP. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I have added some links with exact quotes from reliable sources, along with notes to help those who may know little about the major newspapers and television networks in India. It is absurd to remove all discussion of such matters from the talk page. In defense of Bbb23, there does appear to be strong POV-pushing attempted against this fellow in past versions of the article, so it's a messy area.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Jimbo.

I too sympathize with Bbb23 and other experienced editors and admins whose efforts are needed to protect articles, particularly biographies, from POV pushing. But on the Asaram page that vigilance may unfortunately have curdled into "I didn't hear that" or "ownership", as evidenced by the latest redaction. 50.148.126.65 (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Note Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Asaram_Bapu. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
A summary of issues User:Titodutta/Asaram Bapu (this does not include the talk place comment redaction, which is already being discussed). --Tito☸Dutta 18:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

More BLP... errrr, BDP, stuff and DYK related

This one may seem a bit paranoid, but it deals with a paranoid topic area:

Hyon Song-wol

Popular North Korean singer (to the extent there is such a thing), who, apparently, just got executed (by machine guns) for "making sex tapes" and having "bibles" in her house (if that doesn't make sense to you, it's because you live in one of those lucky countries where things usually make some sort of sense and you got a very narrow view of the world, which you probably learned from the internet)

Most news reports out there more or less speculate that of course it didn't have anything to do with any "sex tapes" or "bibles" but the jealousy of Kim Jong-un's wife, Ri Sol-ju, because according to Wikipedia the North Korean leader "had been romantically involved" with Hyon Song-wol in the past. And chances are that these news reports probably got it right.

Bad regimes being bad, right? Still Hyon Song-wol was until recently a "living person" and her Wikipedia article was a "biography of a living person".

So WHY THE FUCK did her article get featured on the main page on July 2012 as a DYK with the tantalizing hook of "Did you know that North Korean singer Hyon Song-wol ... is said to have been romantically linked with leader Kim Jong-un?"".

Am I saying that's she is (was) a BLP of insufficient notability? No. She was a famous North Korean singer. Deserved a decent encyclopedic article on Wikipedia and all that.

Am I saying that the DYK hook about her played a role in her execution? No Maybe. Who knows? It got 22k views when it appeared. And hey, credit where credit is due, Wikipedia is still like the, what, #7th site on the web?

The point is that the people who nominated this article for appearance on the main page where 1) completely oblivious (or didn't give a flip) to any issues that may be relevant in regard to BLPs of people who live in repressive regimes and 2) chose the most kind of sensationalist "hook" about this person - exactly the thing that could've gotten her into trouble - in order to maximize their page views. If this was a BLP of a person who lived in US or England, Australia, etc. that'd be bad enough, but here it just shows that the nominators and DYK approvers are unthinking mindless ignorant schmucks (I also have a hard time finding anything about LPs who live under repressive regimes in WP:BLP - apparently it's not something worth thinking about. Contrast that with all the inane and idiotic time spent on deciding whether Wikipedia should use a hyphen or a dash).

So Wikipedia editors rack up their "DYK counts" while people in the real world potentially suffer. That's sort of the recurring theme in most of the messages about BLP that have appeared here recently. Wikipedia treats people, living and recently executed, as objects. They're "stuff" to be written about, gossiped about, turned into DYKs or page views (when the BLPs are not straight up promos) or cute little barnstars. There's no empathy or even any slight semblance of journalistic/encyclopedic sensitivity. There is a complete disconnect with the world outside the Wikipedia and how it actually works. Honestly, there is nothing even encyclopedic about it.

Why does it happen? Well, there are actually a lot of good articles on Wikipedia, written about important subjects and with a sense of responsibility. And it is those (usually written long time ago by editors who've subsequently left the project in disgust) quality articles which give Wikipedia any kind of credibility as an encyclopedia, or at least as a useful internet site. On the other hand, these sensationalistic, tabloid-y, sophomoric, "6 o'clock action news!" articles (never mind the inane articles about some dirt road in Gibraltar written and featured because someone somewhere is getting paid for it) are free riding on the existing quality content. When it's done to non-human "objects", like all free riding, it's just dragging the over all quality down bit by bit. When it's done to living, or recently executed people, well... that's a bit more fucked up.Volunteer Marek 04:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

A shocking story for sure, Marek. Your point about editors' general lack of concern for BLP subjects is certainly valid, but for good or ill, various media outlets had already reported the story using similarly sensationalist hooks:

(9 July 2012) "Is Hyon the new first lady of NK?". Korea JoongAng Daily
(10 July 2012) "Is Kim Jong Un's Mystery Woman The 'Excellent Horse-Like Lady'?" NPR.
(11 July 2012) "Is Kim Jong-un's mystery woman a long-lost love?". The Independent.

What I find extremely worrying, is that for the first fourteen hours the article looked like this:

Hyon Song-wol is a North-Korean pop music artist rumoured to be romantically involved with the North-Korean leader Kim Jong-un.

With only one citation.. to the Daily Mail.

(10 July 2012) "Kim Jong-un's mystery woman revealed: Dictator's companion is married pop star whom his father banned him from seeing 10 years ago". Daily Mail.

This is something that I find truly unacceptable. A BLP consisting of just one sentence, sourced to a particularly crappy tabloid should be never be allowed to appear in the mainspace. Unfortunately, the use of such a piss-poor source in a BLP is all too common, and the Mail is one of several publications that really should be restricted so that it is simply not possible to add them to any BLP-related article without some sort of prior review. -- Tabloid Terminator (Hillbillyholiday ^talk 05:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC))

That's sort of the point, ain't it? Is this an encyclopedia or a half-assed tabloid/gutter-rag/Daily-Maily-news-feed? Like I said, there's a ton of quality stuff here. But not on (most) of the main page. Which is where a good chunk of page views or entrance-views come from.Volunteer Marek 06:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree that DYK is in a real state at the moment as regards BLPs. For those that haven't seen it, there have been serious problems with several recent submissions: Did you know#Removed hook, Did you know#Hooks pulled for BLP reasons. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 06:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

This DYK was several years ago, so it's not quite tied in with the current issues. I agree that sourcing was under par here, although I don't think most people would have foreseen a reaction like this by North Korea (and I question how Wikipedia would be considered the one to blame here, if Western media was indeed partially responsible at all) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Simple answer 1: Ban all BLPs from DYK. Simple answer 2: Scrap DYK completely, it's (often) a worthless embarrassment. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Simple answer 3: Dismantle Wikipedia. Overreacting does not help. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek's rant above has got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever seen posted on this talk page, and that's saying something. You seriously think that someone in North Korea was executed because of a DYK hook that appeared for 8 hours, 13 months ago? Seriously?

In the real world, the topic of the DYK hook was widely reported in the international media back in July 2012 [4]. There's no suggestion from anywhere that Hyon Song-wol suffered any harm from having a Wikipedia article or a DYK appearance. That is pure fantasy; Volunteer Marek is simply making it up. She's been photographed performing in public as recently as August 8 this year.[5] That would hardly have been the case if she was in disgrace then. Her fall appears to have taken place between then and August 17, when she was arrested. What do we see in the article history? No editing at all between March 26 and August 29, when the news of her reported execution broke.

As for the article being a poorly sourced stub for its first 14 hours, so what? Plenty of articles start that way. It was very soon turned into a properly sourced article of a decent length with high-quality sources. By the time it appeared on DYK, this is how it looked - not a stub at all.

There is also nothing wrong with the DYK hook. It was thought at the time that Kim Jong-un had secretly married the subject of the article, and this was widely reported by reliable sources: "Is Kim Jong-un's mystery woman a long-lost love?" (The Independent), "Is Kim Jong Un's Mystery Woman The 'Excellent Horse-Like Lady'?" (NPR), "Is Hyon the new first lady of NK?" (Korea JoongAng Daily), etc. It turned out that he had secretly married but that it was a different person, Ri Sol-ju. This shows the major difficulty in writing about anything to do with North Korean politics – because the place is so secretive, it's hard to report things reliably. Every media outlet has that problem, and here on Wikipedia, we're only as good as our sources. Volunteer Marek shows absolutely no awareness of that.

Bottom line: this is not a BLP problem or a DYK problem, it's a "Volunteer Marek making a fool of himself in public" problem. Blaming the recent demise of an apparent victim of North Korean internal politics on a brief appearance on DYK over a year ago is utterly moronic. Prioryman (talk) 09:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's say that the chance that the DYK had nothing to do with the execution is 90%. Does that make you feel better? Where is the consideration for BLP subjects living under repressive regimes in WP:BLP? Where is the discussion of the potential impact running this as DYK might have on the DYK nomination page? Oh. It's not there. Just somebody ticking off some boxes and then updating their DYK count. Let the Independent worry about their own conscience and policy, and let us worry about ours - that's why we have WP:BLP in the first place. The whole "the sources made me do it" excuse is getting lamer and lamer every time it's used. The key is not sources but consideration and empathy.Volunteer Marek 17:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Wonderful. Let's repeat that key insight "we're only as good as our sources". There's hope for Wikipedia when even Prioryman has taken that in. Now key question - what should we do when there are no good sources for something (like, say, current speculation about someone's love life)? 92.39.207.86 (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Prioryman, I was initially quite surprised to see this comment from you: "As for the article being a poorly sourced stub for its first 14 hours, so what? Plenty of articles start that way.

From what I can gather, the creator never returned to the article. Had you not come along, the article may have remained like that for months. We're not talking footpaths here - we're talking about a (sadly no longer) living person from one of the most brutal and repressive regimes on the planet. I wonder just how many articles begin life as a single sentence about a woman's affair with someone like (let's say) The Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army, solely sourced to rumour from (let's say) The DailyfuckingMail?

I say "initially" quite surprised, because I soon recalled that recent BLP DYK of yours, where you thought it was perfectly acceptable to use The Sun as a citation for a desperately ill fella's one-inch penis. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 16:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps someone will remove the unsourced "...he was left with a one inch (2.5 cm) penis" from the lede. The length of his penis is not discussed in the body of the article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Are we discussing multiple different hooks relating to Hyon Song-wol? The hook discussed at the start of this thread is from July 2012, as confirmed by both the link in the first post and the article talk page, which is quite a while ago but not by any token "several years ago". Nil Einne (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The hook is too tantalizingly put, but this version is based on an actual source. The source cites "intelligence officials" speaking about her affair. Now the question here is, what exactly passes the standard of "presented as true" for BLP? Is saying that intelligence officials say there was a relationship, say there are rumors in North Korea about a relationship, the same as saying there's a relationship? On scrutiny it may not have been up to our standards. But as to whether we killed her - no chance. That would be her psycho boyfriend. On her BDP tombstone we can chisel an epitaph: "Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas!" Wnt (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Trying to blame any element of wikipedia for killings within north korea's political sphere is well outside what could be considered reasonable.Geni (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a straw man. Of course the only people responsible for the killing are the ones who ordered it and carried it out. The question is not whether Wikipedia's in any way to blame (it's not) but whether it acted responsibly. And, more generally, whether it acts responsibly with regard to the BLPs of people who live under repressive regimes. It didn't and it doesn't. Volunteer Marek 18:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

we are talking about a bunch of people who's primary language is korean in an area where web access is limited. The odds of there being a link are pretty much nill and if there is no link there can be no question of responsibility. Furthermore given the complexity and opaquacy if north korean internal politics there is no practical method of taking them into account.Geni (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

we are talking about a bunch of people who's primary language is korean in an area where web access is limited - ??? No, no we're not, unless you think that absolutely nobody in North Korea speaks English and has access to Wikipedia. Just... think for a second. The problem is not that some poor North Korean worker will read the article and the gossip. The problem is that people who run the country will. Volunteer Marek 21:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. This is North Korea we are talking about. There is next to no reliable information about that country's internal politics. There is no free media of any kind. Foreign journalists are kept on a very tight rein. The state-run media is notoriously untruthful. The only information that gets out without the NK government's authorisation comes from three main routes - diplomats, defectors and a small number of people with illegal mobile phones who can access the Chinese phone network, at great personal risk to themselves and their families. By definition, virtually everything that comes out of NK is based on rumour and personal accounts, as the government has near-total control of public communications.

In this particular case, yes, we acted responsibly. The reports that Kim Jong-un had a possible new wife were a major international news story. They appeared in many impeccably reliable sources worldwide. They were not in any way a tabloid story (though obviously some tabloids did cover it), but an issue of major political significance. (Wife means future heir, future heir means more Kims to continue the dynasty.) There was absolutely no reason not to report on it - the First Lady of any country is a significant individual, especially under a hereditary regime. In this case it turned out that the woman who had appeared in public with him had been misidentified. That in itself shows how difficult it is to report reliably on NK. And there is no evidence whatsoever that any of those reports had any bearing on Hyon Song-wol's reported demise. Volunteer Marek is just plain flat-out lying on that point. He should be ashamed of himself, if he's still capable of it. Prioryman (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The reports that Kim Jong-un had a possible new wife were a major international news story. Can't stop laughing at that, isn't there something about NOTNEWS. John lilburne (talk) 09:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

In this particular case, yes, we acted responsibly - no, no you didn't. You used a living person as an object of gossip and for the purposes of a pointlessly sensationalistic DYK hook. Just to get "DYK page views". You - or anyone else involved in the article/nomination - did not even stop and consider that special care should be taken with regard to articles about living persons who live under repressive regimes.

And yes, it's very hard to get reliable information about what goes on in North Korea. But jeez-freakin-cheddar-cheese! That's a reason to take MORE care with these articles, not less! That goes triple for BLPs, which should be a no-brainer.

And no. I am not lying about anything. Please point out where I have made a false statement. Otherwise quit making stuff up you weaselly callous little twerp (yes, I've had enough of your gratuitous insults and lying with a straight face). Volunteer Marek 21:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Your statement right at the start of this thread that "maybe" "the DYK hook about her played a role in her execution" is a flat-out lie. You have no sources whatsoever to even suggest that. It's not been mentioned in any news article, any blog, anywhere. You made it up. It's a sick little fantasy which only someone drunk on hatred of Wikipedia could find even remotely plausible.

You're also lying about my purposes. I've pointed out why the subject was an issue of major political importance. Getting DYK views has nothing to do with it. When I write or expand an article, I typically look to nominate it for DYK so that it can get some wider attention for other editors to provide their own input and improvements.

You still don't get the point I'm making about the difficulty of writing about North Korean politics. The NK government regards just about everything to do with internal politics as a state secret. That means that any report concerning internal political divisions will be based on rumour and speculation. That is the nature of the beast. Such things aren't reported in the NK media and foreign journalists have no access to that kind of information within NK. There is no way around that issue unless you abandon writing about NK politics at all. We're showing exactly the same level of responsibility as every other media organisation that covers NK - all we've done in this case is reflect what is being reliably reported by major mainstream sources elsewhere. Quite honestly, your comments show both naivety about NK politics and ignorance of the situation that anyone writing about said politics faces. You would probably be better off focusing on issues that you do actually know something about, though I have to say nothing comes to mind straight away. Prioryman (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

A statement that says "Maybe" cannot be a lie. By definition it's speculation. In fact that's the whole purpose of the word "maybe", to indicate uncertainty. So you're full of it. Again. And one more time. if reports about the internal politics of NK are based on rumour and speculation... then maybe we shouldn't be slapping these rumours and speculations up on the front page! Especially when it has to do with BLPs. It's not that hard of a concept to grasp, I would think.

Let's recap. You can claim that something was "a major international news story" and that it was covered by "impeccably reliable sources worldwide" but... when it went up for DYK nom, the sensationalistic rumour was sourced to a single source, the JoongAng Daily, and that source got the story wrong, no? So all these claims about international news stories and impeccably reliable sources worldwide are just so much crap you just made up, at least as far as the Wikipedia article is concerned..

And quite honestly you should really keep your opinions about my "naivety about NK politics" to yourself (what, you an expert?) as well as the rest of that spittle above (you will probably want to give your keyboard and screen a wipe if you haven't already done so). Volunteer Marek 22:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

the people who run north korea are largely military and frankly have better things to do with their time than follow the front page of the english wikipedia. Of course maybe their agents follow this page and as a result have just killed a family in Hamhung in the hope of influencing you further.Geni (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree we need to cut down on sensationalist DYKs. I agree with others that the DYK was not likely a factor in later events, but the fact remains that it was encyclopedic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Changing the appearance of the top of the page

Jimmy, I think this page/the community would benefit from a notice that there are other community-based ways to contact the WMF board. Do you mind if someone adds something along the lines of, "I am one of the current WMF Board of Trustees (founders seat). Other board members who are elected as community representatives until July 2015 include SJ, Phoebe, and Raystorm"? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 11:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Along the same lines, WP:WMF now exists. I think newcomers have a very hard time wrapping their mind around where the community ends and the WMF begins. Perhaps because of this (and sub-par communication), I think there is unnecessary distaste/overreaction to certain WMF actions. I hope WP:WMF will help facilitate productive communication. Biosthmors (talk) 08:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Finding sources for music or others

A while ago I wrote essay "WP:Suggested sources" (aka "wp:Find sources") to suggest some major wp:RS reliable sources, for various specific topics. Let's discuss sources for music or rock bands (etc.) to expand the list. Currently, there are 3 related essays:

So I am thinking we need:

"wp:Identifying reliable sources (music)"

Or perhaps that topic of "music" is too broad. Do any WikiProjects have a recommended list of music sources? -Wikid77 (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

See the search results for music sources in the Wikipedia namespace.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

See Music Resources

and Music in the Yahoo! Directory

and http://www.musicalamerica.com

and Showcase international music directory

and Classic Cat - the free classical music directory.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Need to update lists of music sources: I see we have some partial lists of major sources, such as with "wp:WikiProject Music/Sources" which also needs to be expanded. I see Last.fm collects wiki contributions, as not written only by journalists. -Wikid77 11:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Shutting down the trolls on this page?

Jimbo, I know you've had an open-door policy on this page for a long time, but I think it's obvious to everyone that it's being routinely abused by the banned users who congregate at Wikipediocracy. Right now there are three threads on this page that were started by sockpuppets or IP addresses on topics that are quite obviously related to posts on Wikipediocracy. I'm sure I don't need to point out that they are not here in good faith – as you've rightly said, they're trying to create "gotcha" moments so that they can attack and embarrass you and Wikipedia. It's borderline harassment at the very least. But you know what they say about not feeding the trolls – they thrive on the reaction they cause. If you shut down troll threads as soon as they appear, they'll lose that satisfaction. Right now, unfortunately, you're playing into their hands by letting them reopen threads you've closed (as in the case of the #Child protection policy thread above). It also doesn't send a very good message when you tolerate banned users – who have been banned for very good reasons – posting here. Prioryman (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, this is his own talk page and he has the right to do what he wants with it. Some people on that site make a record of everything he deletes and call it "censorship", echoing better arguments by spammers who claim a right to be represented in your email inbox, but we do recognize the right of any user to clear out unwanted junk from their own page. Wnt (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes Wikipediocracy denizens make good points, and sometimes they make bad ones, that is the nature of any grouping of people. Just check the bylines of the blog-of-the-week in question and skip over any that list "Peter Damian", an editor who never met a fact that couldn't be twisted into a pretzel for his own needs. The rest are pretty decent. Tarc (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could leave Jimbo's talk page forever, take it off your watchlist and assume that the co-founder of wikipedia is a big enough boy to deal with questions all on his own. Here's an odd thought (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, my initial thought upon seeing the thread title and thread creator was "but where will you go?" Tarc (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Very funny, especially considering you've just followed up to yet another trolling sockpuppet. Prioryman (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It's probably just Vigilant, who, like Earth, can be classified as "mostly harmless". Tarc (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

You spend too much time worrying about this. Mangoe (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

He spends too much time creating high quality articles for Wikipedia. I guess occasionally he takes fifteen minutes out to look at some of the opposition that some of those articles have provoked from certain quarters. And can't resist commenting. Understandable, really. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Er, what does Scientology have to do with any of this? Tarc (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

One of the denizens mentioned is an avowed Scientologist, several more are proponents of ridiculous fringe science (and banned from Wikipedia for their methods of pushing it here, right?), and looking at some of the material prepared and promoted there (for example, the ridiculous incoherent attack on Mathsci for being too successful in getting disruptive fringe-science POV-pushers banned from Wikipedia, in between the forum being laced with alternating posts decrying Wikipedia not respecting subject area experts while simultaneously excoriating Mathsci for being a subject area expert)... where to even start? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it has anything to do with it. The "avowed Scientologist", if it's who I'm thinking of, was an single-purpose contributor here who got topic-banned and promptly went over to Wikipediocracy, the home of the butthurt, to whine about it – presumably after someone pointed him in that direction. No, it's more about the way that the nutjobs from there are persistently targeting people here for lulz. I'm sure Jimbo is fed up with the obsessive way that these people are hounding him. God knows it's irritating enough seeing the same crap coming up over and over again here. As I said at the start of this thread, I think it would be much better all round if he simply refused to engage with them at all and cut off the oxygen supply to their mutual masturbation society. Prioryman (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I must admit, I've pointed several people to Wikipediocracy over the last year or two. Might not have been the people they wanted, though ;) But they manage to recruit much more "nutjob", as you put it, people on their own. Not suggesting they try to, it just... happens. Maybe it's self-perpetuating for any Wikipedia "criticism site" that reaches a certain % of users that are already banned here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Prioryman, please correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be trying to project your feelings about Wikipediocracy onto Jimbo. You aren't trying to do this, are you? Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as Scientology goes, there was precisely one proponent, one whom I particularly enjoyed taking down a notch or two (he didn't really like it when I pointed to list of disappearances and deaths), and pretty much everyone else at the site ridiculed as well. The website does have flaws but don't paint it as some sort of haven for fringe science, since it isn't. Tarc (talk) 23:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Some of the staff (moderators) and such there are banned from Wikipedia due to their behaviour pushing fringe science here? Or do I misunderstand that? And those same people are involved in writing these "blog posts" (including one attacking a rather widely respected academic) that are Wikipediocracy's public face? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

@Demiurge. You in particular have got plenty of room to complain about your personal treatment at Wikipediocracy without trying to frame reality in this way. You must surely be aware that it is flat wrong to intimate that the WPO/Prioryman foodfight has anything whatsoever to do with his well-known editorial proclivities towards one particular so-called "new religious movement." It's beyond disingenuous, bordering on intellectually dishonest, to point out that if one WP topic-banned Scientologist has posted there this somehow indicates a pro-Scientology "community standard" at WPO. Anyone who has paid the slightest attention to the relevant threads knows that quite the opposite is true. The heavy and ongoing criticism of Gibraltarpedia and the general issue of quasi-commercial Did You Know abuse is not a stalking horse for anything. It is unadulterated criticism of what it professes to criticize. Take it at face value. By the same token, the fact that a partisan of the Lyndon LaRouche "new political movement," shall we say, is a moderator at WPO doesn't reflect community standards there about that movement either. It reflects the personal views of one person, a person who is sometimes right about things, and sometimes wrong — as are we all. The "critics of the critics" tend to see Wikipediocracy as a monolithic entity. In reality, it is a message board with participants who run the gamut from ArbCom members to the most bitter and intractable enemies of The Project. There is nuance and there is debate and there is disagreement. And the community standard there on the issues you raise at are quite the opposite of what you intimate. Carrite (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, my post above is not about Wikipediocracy, and not about Peter Damian, and not about the blog, and not even about the whistleblower. My post above is about the 14-years old boy who said that his "mentor" "enjoys caning naughty boys" before his "mentor" added "This user observed, received, and administered corporal punishment while he was a schoolboy" to his user page. I was called an "attention whore" and a "troll", but so far I haven't heard an explanation of the described behavior. 50.174.76.70 (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Surely you aren't asking me to explain that behavior? If not, then what are you asking me?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

You said: "I'd need more information than that to make a decision." I provided more information, and now I'm expecting you to make a decision.50.174.76.70 (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

You have provided insufficient information. Can you link me to the ArbCom case on this matter?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Link you to the ArbCom case on this matter? I don't think there was one.

I believe I did provide the sufficient information. We know that the "mentor" and the boy exchanged private emails and that the content of at least some of them had nothing to do with Wikipedia, and was inappropriate. It also looks likely that at some point the boy got emotionally involved with his "mentor". What else do we need to know? 50.174.76.70 (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

You may know those things; I do not. Do you have any actual evidence? Links I can read? Popping up on my talk page with vague allegations with no substantiation is not very helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Haven't you gotten the email from Delicious carbuncle?50.174.76.70 (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, I emailed Jimbo a very brief synopsis of the situation, identifying the users under discussion, so that he could look into it further. That was the extent of my participation in this, although I did offer to provide links if Jimbo desired. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I emailed you the links. The subject of my email is "The mentor". 50.174.76.70 (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Have you had a time to review the links, Mr. Wales? Thanks. 50.174.76.70 (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia wish list

(alternative headings: "Wikipedia desiderata", "Wikipedia problems causing retirement", "Wikipedia conditions for return")

Any editor who is contemplating retirement from Wikipedia may wish to post on his or her user page a clear, concise message about the reason(s) for retirement and the condition(s) desired before recommencement of editing. Clear communication is especially important when absence prevents replies to requests for clarification. Conciseness is important for encouraging others to read the message, but there can be links to elaborations and to past discussions. The retiree might state how frequently he or she intends to check his or her talk page for messages.
Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians has a list of retired Wikipedians and the reasons of some of them for leaving. A related discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention#Reaching out to the past (version of 15:18, 30 August 2013). If some concerns are later deemed to be valid, then there might be improvements to Wikipedia as a consequence.
—Wavelength (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC) and 02:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC) and 06:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The invitation still seems to encourage retirement, although with balanced wording. Perhaps if worded as, "Instead of retiring, consider discussing issues at...". Anyway, I have updated wp:Missing Wikipedians to add User:SMcCandlish (2 July 2013) and User:Neotarf (20 July 2013) over ArbCom warning by Sandstein, and noted User:Uncle_G has 4-month wikibreaks (to avoid getting re-added/removed from list). -Wikid77 12:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Composing a clear, concise message requires that adequate time be spent in the choice of words and phrases.
—Wavelength (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Why the bias against IMDb?

Just throwing out a question as to why, every time IMDb is mentioned or brought up there is this huge visceral reaction amongst Wikipedians that some how IMDb is the devil and always unreliable and should never be mentioned. While I can see that other better sources should be used, I personally would like to see a debate as to what makes IMDb truly unreliable at every single use, no matter what. Our own article on IMDb states it is "generally reliable", and I have to say I have seen reliable newspapers use IMDb as a source (XY was xx at her death according to IMDb" for instance), but yet I do have to say I have never seen a major newspaper acknowledge it used Wikipedia as a source for information. It seems funny to me that lots of Wikipedians bemoan the lack of respect Wikipedia gets from academics as an unreliable source but yet do the same bashing on IMDb...Camelbinky (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It's like wikipedia, volunteers contribute content. On wikipedia those are treated as inherently unreliable because they are. If you randomly select one of the 4 million wikipedia articles, it is likely to be garbage, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with IRWolfie. If this FAQ page on the accuracy/reliability of their info, it basically works akin to Wikipedia (and while there are upper-level "consistency checks" that they mention, it's not clear what that means, really). To their credit, they do have something like notability guidelines for new entries, but I don't get the sense that this particularly well-enforced. There are some news articles describing this unreliability like this one from The Telegraph and NY Daily News. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

So why are there so many links to wikia? John lilburne (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

99% of those aren't in article pages. Is there any way of filtering that? The only usage that jumped out at me in the first 100 was of uncyclopedia which uses it for obvious reasons. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

When there are 10,000s 1% is a large number. Anyway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_Nomad_%26_the_World_Eaters, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prinny:_Can_I_Really_Be_the_Hero%3F, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_Fowl:_The_Last_Guardian, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Fallon, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasuda,_K%C5%8Dchi, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_music ... John lilburne (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

They seem to be mostly used for external links. I think user generated content can be ok for external links provided they are known to be relatively stable etc, including IMDb and wikia, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

See the external links search results for http://www.imdb.com.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

From my Google search for site:www.nytimes.com "according to wikipedia",

I found http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/magazine/jimmy-wales-is-not-an-internet-billionaire.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

and http://www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/lessons/20040729thursday_print.html

and http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/20/business/media/20adnews.html?pagewanted=all.

–Wavelength (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I give you the third of your links. First one is ABOUT Jimbo himself, not exactly a great article to use as an argument that Wikipedia is used as a source; second doesn't appear to actually be anything that was printed/published. Sad, but I stand by my argument that IMDb is actually a more reliable source than Wikipedia. Though in Wikipedia's defence the reason it is not considered an acceptable source in a college setting is that NO ENCYCLOPEDIA is allowed to be cited by ANY professor, and it pisses me off when editors think the goal is some how to get Wikipedia "reliable" enough so it should be. It wont happen. Ever.97.85.208.225 (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any good reason for the anger in your remarks. As a personal recommendation, I always advise people to relax a notch or two. As for me, I don't think (and have said so publicly many times) the test of "Can Wikipedia be cited in academic papers?" is a valid goal for us, precisely because that isn't the role of an encyclopedia in the research process. I think there's no reason to get pissed off about people who think otherwise, though. :-)

To go back to the original question - for me personally, I don't know enough about IMDB's research processes to determine whether it could in some cases be used as a reliable source. Certainly some elements of the site are user-generated and more or less unedited, but other things, such as the cast lists and so on, strike me as closer to 100% accurate than any traditional source. I think we can be more sophisticated than simple "yes/no" answers to questions like "Is IMDB a reliable source?" But I do not personally know enough to have a very strong opinion about what the right answer is.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a note that we currently have thousands of otherwise notable topics where the only reference is IMDb so if we stop using the IMDb site as a source, then we will probably need to delete those thousands of articles, many of them BLP's, as unsourced. Personally I think the important thing is to make this the most comprehensive encyclopedia and I think too many people are too wrapped up in trying to find the perfect source. The reason why a lot of this stuff isn't in another book or location is because 1) it would sell because there aren't enough people interested in that niche topic, 2) They cannot make a book with 10, 000, 000 pages to hold all the articles we can have here and 3) Because the sources for a lot of these topics are scarce. So in some cases we need to use what we can get. Now that doesn't mean using any homegrown website or Ma and pa's blog, but IMDb is considered in many circles to be a well respected site. There is no reason we shouldn't consider it one too unless we are looking for a reason to delete several thousand articles. Kumioko (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

If the only source for an article is IMDb, how exactly does it pass notability guidelines - we expect multiple independent sources... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

IMDB was the go-to example back when BLPPROD was new and there was a question as to whether removal of that template required only a source (IMDB), or a reliable source. That something is only currently sourced to IMDB does not argue that multiple sources do not exist. Reso lute 03:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm of the same opinion as Kumioko, and I hope Jimbo is able to find time to comment and participate next time there is a discussion about IMDb being used. The reason I got to thinking and researching bout IMDb is because it had been used as a soft-redirect and so many people were making comments about how bad IMDb is and how it shouldn't be used as a reference even. And Kumioko, I do believe there are quite a few who would be of the opinion that those articles with IMDb should be deleted. And to me that is sad.Camelbinky (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's also remember that IMDb is not the only site of its kind in heavy use on the project. And it doesn't just affect Biographies, it contains Movies, TV Shows, characters, and a lot of other things that aren't available anywhere else. So if we eliminate this, then we also need to delete a lot of other things. Thousands of unsourced things. There is also KMDb (Korean version of IMDb) and several others that fall into the same category. So we are putting ourselves on a slippery slope. Kumioko (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

We don't just always delete things because they are unsourced, but "... if we eliminate this, then we also need to delete a lot of other things" sounds good to me. If trivia can only be sourced to IMDB and "aren't available anywhere else" it shouldn't be on wikipedia. It would be better for people to just go to IMDB in those cases. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Well that comment is both unfortunate and disappointing. I realize I am just a lowly editor but I would prefer to build the encyclopedia up, not tear it down. One of the reasons why Wikipedia is so popular is because we have a lot of information on a wide array of topics. Including a lot of those where its extremely hard if not impossible to find anywhere else. If we start chopping out thousands of articles because the sources aren't from CNN or a book, then we are going to gradually lose a lot of that following. With that said, IMO Wikipedia has been on a steady decline for a while now so this is just another example of users who are more interested in trying to make Wikipedia less useful because of a narrow and misguided view that we need to be more reliable. Which it will never be. Kumioko (talk) 13:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal

I am going to remove your addition to Talk:Asaram Bapu again (you actually double-added it, but I assume that was inadvertent). This is an administrative action, and I have to treat you the same as other editors. If you object, please take it to WP:AN (here). As I stated on the talk page, I've opened a second discussion there to review my actions (the first ended with no consensus that my actions were incorrect).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Your actions are obviously incorrect, so I suggest you rethink them first. Please post to the talk page to discuss, before removal. I am here to talk about it, let's not escalate this in a way that will be damaging.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

My actions, right or wrong, are absolutely consistent. Why can't you take it to AN and object to my actions there? I can't just do what you want because you say so.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Consistently wrong is still wrong. I have commented at AN, but what I'm asking you to do is explain to me, before this spins out of control, what policy basis you see for removing direct quotes from clearly reliable sources, posted to the talk page in an effort to help editors study the issue and determine what the article will say. Please cite policy precisely. To me, it looks like you are just violating policy for no reason. I'm sure that's not true, and I'd like to help you understand policy better so that you can change course.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It is policy, not Bbb23: User:Bbb23's act is understandable to some extent, but not the policy Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Where_BLP_does_and_does_not_apply which states, BLP is applicable in talk page too. But it does not mention what actually can be posted there and what not. Incomplete and confusing information. Are the same article space BLP restrictions are applicable in talk page discussions too? There are other loopholes too, it says, BLP is applicable for "unknown" people. Now what is "unknows". Unknown to who? We had a long discussion here. The BLP policy is creating confusions here. If the BLP policy clearly mentions something like what you have said above It is always going to be acceptable to, at a very minimum, discuss on the talk page a criminal allegation that is being clearly reported it will clear all confusions. --Tito☸Dutta 23:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree with you. Policy in this area is very clear and very well understood. There is nothing in the BLP policy that even remotely suggests that it is appropriate to prevent discussion of reliably sourced information. If you can find a line which leads to any confusion on this point, then by all means, we should discuss it and fix it. But given that Bbb23 hasn't even attempted to give a justification, a line in policy that would allow him to do what he has done, I think that exercise is a bit premature. Bbb23, do you intend to justify yourself?

BLP policy applies to talk pages as well as anywhere else. But BLP policy does not in any small or large way suggest or even hint that it should be used to justify deletion of well-sourced exact quotes from talk pages of articles by calm and neutral editors who are trying to help improve the article. This is just completely beyond the pale.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

(slow internet user, might take some to reply) I am not supporting Bbb23's actions. Actually we are debating against each other in these discussions. And I have been saying the same thing from the beginning (that they need to allow us to add references to establish our points). Your comments above are very much clear. And if I consider your posts as policy, there is no scope of confusion. But, not the actual policy. I have posted another comment at AN. --Tito☸Dutta 00:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, there is a new reply at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Asaram_Bapu --Tito☸Dutta 00:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, the first source in the removed entry: http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/the-advantages-of-being-asaram-bapu/ is clearly a blog and as such it should not be used a source to a negative information about a living person in the article space. I have not reviewed the other sources but they may or may not be useful for the article space. Said this, I should note that there is indeed a confusion over the BLP policy. Somebody understands those three letters as a magic spell to instantly remove any discussion from talk pages. I think it is wrong. We have to balance the interests of article's subjects and wikipedia readers. Article space information is highly visible (usually at the top of web search results) and positioned as an objective truth. Thus, it is potentially very harmful. Talk pages have very low visibility and the information consists of attributed (by the signature) opinions of some particular wikipedia volunteers. Thus, talk pages usually have very low potential for hurting living people (e.g. in Talk:Asaram_Bapu case the readership of the New York Times blog is way more prominent than the readership of Talk:Asaram_Bapu) and no harm can be done by keeping the reference on the talk page. So, except the most egregious cases the discussion of doubtful materials on the talk pages should be allowed Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, do you honestly believe that a biography already serving as a hit piece should be made into even more of a hit piece due to some politically-charged accusations? From what I gather the subject has been repeatedly arrested in the past over other egregious charges, yet apparently not convicted of any, in scenarios that resemble political maneuvering by opponents. Maybe Bbb is not adhering to the letter of policy in removing talk page comments, but I fail to see why we should even discuss adding recent allegations of rape to a BLP that is already dripping in hostility towards the subject.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

"Jimbo, do you honestly believe that a biography already serving as a hit piece should be made into even more of a hit piece due to some politically-charged accusations?" Of course I do not, as I am sure you were already well aware when you asked such a misleading and irrelevant question. When a public figure notable for, among other things, a particularly astonishing "blame the victim" view on a famous rape case is himself arrested for rape, an arrest reported in reliable sources, then of course we must discuss it. I can't imagine you really honestly believe that we shouldn't even discuss it. That position would not be persuasive to very many people, and so you may wish to consider what premises have led you to a position that virtually everyone would reject outright as absurd.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

We aren't here to right great wrong's. Newspapers give this topic an incredibly large amount of coverage and the onus is now on us to cover it neutrally, whether you think he is being victimised by opponents or some such is neither here nor there. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if he is being victimized, but it seems charges against him in the past tend to be politicized and didn't stand up in court. Just because a bunch of news sources report some allegation does not mean we should mention it, certainly not immediately. News sources widely report all sorts of scandalous situations regarding public figures, but we shouldn't include them just because it is reported, especially if it is an as-of-yet unsubstantiated allegation of serious misconduct. Here we have an article that already consists primarily of negative material attacking the subject. Were there not so much negative noise in the article I would see it as more acceptable to include mention of the recent incident, but I fail to see why an already unbalanced article should be made even less balanced just because there are some new scurrilous details to "report" on Wikipedia.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

In any bio and most especially in all BLP's, extreme care must be taken to ensure the information is reliably referenced and that all details are scrutinized for proper weight. In some cases, the reliable references might have far more weight on the negative aspects of a person, but this doesn't mean we remove it...all that we need do is not repeat it ad nauseum. A negative issue should have multiple reliable sources, but the negative issue itself need not be repeated over and over in an article. In my opinion TDA, you have failed to examine the sources.--MONGO 16:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, MONGO, check these many reliable sources, after searching: Google search: "Asaram Bapu" 376 (rape) 509". Note use of terms "Delhi Police" or "Delhi's Kamla Market police registered cases under Sections 376 (rape), 509 (word, gesture...)" and similar. Then, apologize to The Devil's Advocate. Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Apologize for what? I am aware of the evidence...I'm not advocating the evidence be suppressed...he is.--MONGO 07:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Formal appeal

As the case is still open, it is premature to appeal. It is also worthwhile to keep in mind that the standard I use for evaluating appeals from ArbCom decisions is not "would I have voted this way" - it is not for me to override their judgment in that fashion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please regard my email to you as a formal appeal of a strange "finding of fact" and concommittant topic ban which will pass ArbCom -- that a person calling a hypothetical posed by another editor "bosh and twaddle" is now bannable is outré indeed -- as is the simple fact that the diffs cited in the FoF are things which (no sane admin would) find bannable at AN/I, therefore the ArbCom likewise should show an ounce of common sense. [6] would mark the very first time in the history of Wikipedia that anyone was topic banned for such (silly reasoning), and you well ought not defer to such a (strange) decision. As noted before, I am still on a "Wikistrike" unless and until ArbCom arrives at rational decisions, instead of "the Lord will know his own" rationales. Collect (talk) 11:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Please also consider the directly related case of User:Snowded as well -- the boat is the same, we shall all sink or swim. Collect (talk) 11:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

"Twaddle" is found many hundreds of times on Wikipedia -- including uses by many admins. "Bosh" also appears hundreds of times. In fact, I suggest it is a word Jimbo himself has likely used; absolutely his in-laws have used it (one of the most common Britishisms known). Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC) "Bosh and twaddle" is also a very common term -- vide [7] Teddy Roosevelt writing to Kermit: I think the wise thing to do is simply to skip the bosh and twaddle and vulgarity and untruth, and get the benefit out of the rest.. Used in the US Senate [8] by an eminent Senator. And so on. Yet this is now found to be "bannable usage"? LOL! Collect (talk) 11:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Pretentious donation plea

May I inquire who is the clown on your team who came up with this pretentious line of horseshit;

"Wikipedia is something special. It is like a library or a public park. It is like a temple for the mind, a place we can all go to think and learn."

It was on the donation plea that pops up when you load a page. Who are you kidding, it is no library, and especially not a 'temple for the mind'. Now that's definitely inflated. The thing about Wikipedia is, it's only good for trivial information. Go to any page requiring research and you'll undeniably find agendas spewed across like the filth it is. Hell, half of the pages don't even have sources for what they say! Just a typical place where the pages are governed by the elitist long time editors to edit according to their agenda.

So, I would advise disposing of the pompous asshat who wrote that line. For that I will no longer donate again.

Cheers.

207.161.232.212 (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't let the door hit you on the way out... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You donate a lot, do you? Tell you what; show some proof of any money you've donated to the WMF, and I'll personally double it and donate it to the charity of your choice. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Now that's a problem. Give valid criticism and you get responses like this. 207.161.232.212 (talk) 22:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

"clown...horseshit...pompous asshat"? "valid criticism"? Yeah, right... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Your first fallacy is mistaking substance for style. Try again. 207.161.232.212 (talk) 22:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comments. I wrote that line personally myself and I stand by it. If Wikipedia's ad-free commitment to neutrality and high quality information, shared freely by volunteers, doesn't remind you of a public park or a library, if you don't think of Wikipedia as a temple for your mind, a place where you can go to think and learn, then I'm disappointed. Perhaps some other websites will be more to your liking.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about 'public park'. With all the silly arguments that end with "get out, you're barred", perhaps a 'public house' is more appropriate. Except that we don't even ask for I.D. at the door. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 10:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, try drinking a beer in a public park in the U.S. and you might hear, "Get out, you're under arrest". -Wikid77 12:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's talk about Fermat and Aristotle: For anyone who does not see Wikipedia as a place to think and learn, I recommend reading article "Fermat's Last Theorem" re Pierre de Fermat in 1637 noting the equation aⁿ + bⁿ = cⁿ has no integer solution for a/b/c above n=2 (beyond 3²+4²=5²). Also consider updating the page "Recovery of Aristotle" which I wrote around this time 2 years ago (July 2011), because after 10 years, I could not find a full page about translations of Aristotle anywhere else on the Internet (some readers have suggested to also write about the use of rediscovered ancient Greek texts in the Recovery). Feel free to enter the Temple and update please. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I see a problem with the public park or library part... though I do agree with the temple for the mind. Use of the words public parks and libraries implies "government" (for lack of a better word) or "municipal" ownership, Wikipedia while substantially community based and !rules for the most part are community decided, at the end of the day that is only because the WMF says so. Obviously there are libraries that are not municipally owned (college and private libraries), and parks not owned by governments (Gramercy Park, I just see something about libraries and parks that are fundamentally different than Wikipedia; as something provided by the community for the benefit of tax-payers/citizens of the community, whereas Wikipeda is something provided by the WMF for the benefit of EVERYONE.Camelbinky (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, consider Wikipedia as provided for citizens of the world, where the WMF is acting as the governing agency, across the world, in 170 other-language wikipedias. -Wikid77 06:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23

Hello Jimbo,

Congratulations on the birth of your child. I remember the days after the births of my sons as among the most intense of my life. In recent days, you have made some thoughtful, perceptive observations on several contentious issues, and I am always impressed when you acknowledge not being familiar enough with the details of an issue to express an opinion.

I agree with you completely on the substance of your dispute with Bbb23. However, I was disappointed that you called for him to resign as administrator. Especially when he had withdrawn from the debate and promised no more disruptive use of the tools. He also acknowledged a very emotional reaction.

In a discussion just a couple of sections above, you wrote, "I always advise people to relax a notch or two". That was great advice, and I recommend it to you, and to Bbb23 as well. Best regards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's good enough. I think you need to resign your admin bit. Your actions are very very far outside the standard that I expect admins to follow

You know, if you're going to do the "I'm just another editor" schtick, you ought not to try to throw your weight around just because someone disagrees with you. --Calton | Talk 05:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I think here is a workable plan: Step (1) Bbb23 should resign as admin, step (2) study wp:BLP about police charges, (3) apologize to Jimbo, (4) contemplate why Jimbo's comments were ruthlessly removed, (5) meditate on an "attitude adjustment", (6) rerun for admin after adjustment, or follow a 12-step program for reforms. We do not need a trigger-happy admin deleting links to wp:RS reliable reports of police charges in a talk-page, and edit-warring without wp:CLUE against the founder. Jimbo is right, again. Resign as admin. -Wikid77 22:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I must say that I agree with Jimmy and Wikid77. Bbb23 should resign as an admin because his actions were not befetting of what one would expect of an administrator.--Crème3.14159 (talk) 11:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Dial it down a notch, Wikid. — Scott • talk 09:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like an opinion that 'just any other editor' would be within their rights to provide. I see no weight being thrown. --Onorem (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

@Onorem, indeed, I found Jimbo's comments very neutral and appropriate about an admin who does not follow written policies and seems unable to quote their actual wording. Please remember how admin candidates are often denied approval due to concerns of speedy-tagging a dog breed rather than a dog, and then compare to twice deleting sourced links to formal police charges posted by admin/founder Jimbo. -Wikid77 06:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I, along with others on this page apparently, expect an explanation for how this source is a "reliable" source:

[9] This is clearly a blog, and upon further looking I am almost certain it is nowhere near subject to the editorial oversight of the NYT itself.

I won't say anything on the others, but that one clearly should've been removed.

Furthermore, when dealing with BLP violations, it doesn't matter a lick who is being quoted or who exactly said the information, but that it is on Wikipedia. Since you posted these quotes, you brought them onto Wikipedia. From what I can see, Bapu hadn't even been arrested, much less charged, before you put up these "allegations". As you may know, allegations have no place on Wikipedia when they could harm someone's reputation such as these could have. If nothing else, you should've discussed this with either the community or with Bbb23 before going on your "I'm the all-powerful ruler, cease, desist, and hand in your adminship" rant. The fact that you care more about having those quotes on the page than someone enforcing BLP is not good. Please see my lifeguard analogy at ANI if you'd better understand an analogy to a real life job. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 14:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Charmlet, you know this is a no-trolling zone for imagined "rants" or otherwise. -Wikid77 22:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I was not trolling. I asked a valid "explain how this is reliable" question. Don't call me a troll again. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 00:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Not to point out your rampant hypocrisy, but you think it should be removed from being linked on a talk page, and here you are linking it on a talk page. The post [10] and thus the blog were only being used to establish that the incident was very widely reported on. Newspaper blogs can be perfectly acceptable per WP:NEWSBLOG. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I have clarified, below, as sub-thread "#Remember when news blogs are reliable sources". Many people did not get the memo when the word "blog" was expanded into professional areas. -Wikid77 22:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

...was expanded into professional areas with the same meaning as in non-professional areas. Just because it's hosted by a news organization does not make it reliable or subject to editorial oversight. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 00:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Remember when news blogs are reliable sources

For years, there has been a realization how a "news blog" is not an open forum, but rather a column where reputable authors can post various comments. Regarding the contested entry at india.blogs.nytimes.com ("Advantages of Being Asaram Bapu"), the author "SNIGDHA POONAM" is the Assistant Editor at The Caravan magazine (see: CM29). Always check the background of the author in a news blog, which is often a person of renown in the region. -Wikid77 22:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Please realize that just because a journalist writes it does not make it reliable. For example, Anderson Cooper's blog would not be a reliable source, even though it is written by a staff member. It doesn't matter who writes it, it matters who (if anyone) reviews it for accuracy (i.e. editorial staff). ~Charmlet ^-talk- 00:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the term "reliable" applies, but rather "splitting hairs" is closer. -Wikid77 06:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Blogs are blogs are blogs even if they are written by notable authors and hosted on notable media sites. Every blog is just an opinion of an individual that have not gone through peer reviews or independent fact checking. It might be intentionally simplified or twisted for entertainment purposes, etc. The only information a blog can reliably source is the information about the opinion of the blogger himself or herself. The opinion of a notable blogger (e.g. Paul Krugman) might be very notable but it is still a personal opinion. It cannot be used to source objective truth especially for such grave cases as rape allegations against a living person Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Please see policy wp:VERIFY#Newspaper_and_magazine_blogs, for allowable sources. I would warn that "fact-checking" at FoxNews.com might not have the same level of reliability as at the Christian Science Monitor, so always consider the source, regardless of news blog or newspaper texts. But remember, WP users and admins should abide by the written policies (wp:NEWSBLOG) until changed. -Wikid77 06:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I did not propose, and would not propose without further investigation, that the New York Times India blog piece - written by a professional journalist for pay by the New York Times - be used as sole source or even as a source at all for the story. I listed the blog among several other high quality reliable sources to inform the discussion about the relevance of the emerging story and how it is being reviewed. Such links, posted to talk pages, are absolutely critical for an appropriate and thoughtful approach to writing an encyclopedic summary of events.

It is important to be thoughtful rather than simply follow excessively simplistic and false "rules" blindly. There is a big difference between a New York Times blog (written by a professional journalist of good reputation and which is subject to editorial review and internal policies about factuality, etc.) and a random blog by some unknown person and posted on a free blogging service. This idea that "a blog is a blog is a blog" is just false. There are many different types of blogs - some devoted to opinion, some devoted to factual reporting, some with no oversight at all, some with significant oversight. The word "blog" is not in anyway regulated to mean just one type of thing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Some blogs are written by notable bloggers, some blogs are written by nobodies. Some blogs are humorous and some are serious. Some blogs are written by impostors and some are warranted to be genuine things. Still none of the blogs goes through a peer review or an independent from the author fact checking. Blogs are good sources for the opinions of notable bloggers, blogs should not be used as a source for objective truth. Said this I should repeat that a NYT blog is good enough source for a discussion on talk page and should not be removed from the talk page during discussion Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, it sounds like we agree on the essential point for this discussion. Separate from that, I think you are mistaken about the level of peer review / independent fact checking of blog posts versus newspaper articles. The difference is not as simple as your presentation would indicate.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I would tend to assume that if a New York Times journalist were to write something questionable in his/her blog, it most likely would be subject to review from colleagues and editorial staff, because anything a news source's journalists post anywhere on the company web site is going to reflect on the editorial integrity of the company. I agree with Jimbo that there is a difference between a "blog posting" by a staff member of a well-known news organization, posted on the news organization's own web site, and a "blog posting" by some random dude who runs his own personal web site. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 08:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, there's a difference between a blog posting at the New York Times and a front page story, or a story for the New York Times magazine. We have to exercise editorial judgment, and although it's usually pretty straightforward, there will be borderline cases.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

News blogs without fact-checking would get a checkmark: Certainly, any news blog which risks unchecked text will soon get checked by someone, as the probability of text errors would be far too great. However, for specific evidence, I found a quote to confirm a fact-checked blog, "The Caucus, the New York Times [NYT] blog, will be live-blogging and fact-checking the debate here", reported on 22 October 2012, regarding the Obama/Romney debates (see: flagerlive.com/44957/...). With all the emphasis on "fact-checking" of news coverage, it is common sense that the NYT news blog would also use fact-checking and encourage the general practices, perhaps not the same process of checking the front page, but certainly not reporter-a-la-improv to write any opinions unchecked. We can get more sources to further explain the fact-checking procedures of various news blogs. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

On review, that source is an opinion piece and we should be cautious of using it as the centrepiece for sourcing our article. The NYTimes blogs are generally Op-ed style pieces so should be presented as the opinion of the author. The author in question is an arts editor, and although a professional journalist she is not a political or religious correspondent. In addition she has strong views (naturally) on the problems of rape in India. One of the most important components of WP:RS is that was consider the triumvirate of publisher, author and content. In this case the context of author and the specific place of publication suggest this is not the sort of exemplary source we'd need to hang this content off of. Combined with the extra caution of BLP, it should definitely only be used for key facts and specific opinion attributed to the author. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Considering the very large number of available sources it would not need to be used, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

In general, news blogs should never be used as sources - they're questionable, and we should really be aiming for Caesar's wife quality in our sourcing - if that means we lose some of the racy exciting bits, well... so be it. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Fish dinner

I personally want admins to be very trigger-happy enforcing BLP on pages with histories of serious BLP problems. We do not want a chilling effect on BLP hawks. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

So, to prefer cover-up of the truth? -Wikid77 05:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Have you looked at the specifics of this case? Certainly there shouldn't be any chilling effect, but people (particularly admins) should learn from mistakes and over-applying BLP to the detriment of an article. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

There was a BLP with a history of problematic edits in the news with some pretty serious allegations flying around him. Jimbo added a link to ~~a source~~ (Sources) of debateable reliability to the talk page (fine), Bbb reverted (Probably a mistake, but erring on the correct side), and then Jimbo called for a desysoping on AnI (The reason for the trouting). Did I miss something? Tazerdadog (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

A source? He linked to about 5 different sources from a variety of very well known newspapers [11]. My own sourced request [12] was silently removed from the talk page without informing. Another removal was me pointing to the massive news coverage: [13] IRWolfie- (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Those two weren't the edits I took umbrage too. I didn't like calling for a desysoping after the admin had disengaged even if that admin made mistakes (Which I think he did, personally). I want admins actively enforcing their understanding of BLP, and erring on the side of caution. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I would largely agree, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

As would I. It's important to note that I did not call for a desysopping. I am as strong a BLP hawk as anyone - this is not about that. This is about behavior that no admin should engage in. Tazerdadog, you say that I added links to sources of "debatable reliability" to the talk page, but that is simply not true. None of the links were in any way remotely unsuitable for that talk page discussion, and I haven't seen anyone seriously debate that. Indeed, a big part of the problem here was the admin's refusal to give reasons. He appeared to be following a mental model that said "you can't add anything negative to this talk page" which is not what BLP policy suggests at all. Indeed, editors must be free to have a frank discussion about sources, and all of these were legitimate sources to discuss and debate. We aren't talking about someone posting links to attack sites - we are talking about serious and factual media articles from mainstream media. That's just not even remotely what BLP policy says admins should do.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding? You said, quote, "I don't think that's good enough. I think you need to resign your admin bit." Don't "wikilawyer" your way out of it. You played godking when someone questioned you, and then played godking in telling them to resign. You linked to a blog to support allegations. I don't care how many other sources there are, blogs cannot be used to support allegations about a BLP subject. Just admit you're wrong and move on. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 14:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I am absolutely 100% correct. I posted a list of links about a topic of interest in order to further reasonable discussion by editors, including questions about the importance and relevance of the reliably sourced allegations, and among those links was one to the New York Times India blog. This was 100% good editing and I would do it again and recommend it to all editors. And I do think that Bbb23 should resign his admin bit if he can't change his ways.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Should I bring up how you said it was "reliable source" "quick search for reliable sources" and more? Or are you going to keep going on about how you're always right? I'm half tempted to ask you to resign your sysop bit for this poor judgement on the reliability of a source, and your continued "godking" attitude for lack of a better word when questioned. Accept you're wrong, on this one source, and move on. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 14:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I am absolutely 100% right on this one source. It was 100% correct and valid and useful to post it to the talk page of the article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

If you want to split hairs, then technically no, you did not call for a desysopping. You did tell Bbb23 to resign, which is pretty much the same thing and as can be seen above, your hangers-on have taken it as a call for desysopping. Reso lute 14:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It is not at all the same thing to suggest that he resign. It would be dignified and proper for him to do so. If he does not, then I do not propose that we be desysopped - but I will be disappointed him.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Uh, what? You don't "propose" Bbb23 be desysopped, you're merely going to "recommend" he should have the bit removed if he doesn't resign? Talk about hairsplitting. "If he doesn't apologize and indicate an understanding of policy at the end of a cool down period, I'm going to recommend that he either resign the admin bit or have it removed".[14] Bbb23 made it clear from the start that he won't change his stance, so that's clearly an attempt at breaking out the godking steamroller. You know, if you now regret the way you put it, it would be more dignified to simply take it back instead of prevaricating and mumbling about how you merely meant you'll be "disappointed". Talk about "cool down" periods is depreciated, btw. Bishonen | talk 20:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC).

Oh Jimbo, you do make me laugh sometimes. Giano 21:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

not to mention that Bbb is one of the more visible admins, doing adminy work all over the place. so what if he was a bit overzealous at applying BLP policy; he was being bold and enforcing a policy that the FOUNDATION created. BLP is one of the most strongly enforced policies, and rightly so. why would you complain about an action that can be reasonably construed as being within the bounds of said policy. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 21:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The consensus is generally that it was not within the bounds of policy. Have you looked at what happened specifically? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have. it looked like something I might revert myself. he may have been a little overzealous, but it looks to have been done in good faith, he clearly believed that he was withing the bounds of policy. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 16:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry just to clarify, can you please indicate what you think this is all about specifically? The reason I ask is because you say revert singular. Where what we are discussing is a series of talk page reverts and redactions. Here they are in reverse chronology: [15][16][17][18][19][20]. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It is the same thing that you ask him to resign as you calling for a desysopping. You wanted him to lose his bit. However you phrase that, that's your choice. You're digging your hole deeper on these issues by lawyering your way around admitting guilt. Thus, to try to help you, I'm disengaging from your talkpage. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 14:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Your strange interpretation of RS isn't helping things Charmlet. We've talked on IRC, someone can produce the logs if they wish, where you over-reacted and ragequit over a simple conversation where you ended up repeating your "It's not reliable because it's a blog" mantra. Your interpretation of RS is ultimately quite naive due to your maturity and lack of experience on wikipedia and not compatible with say WP:NEWSBLOG etc. You narrowly avoided being blocked previously with your contributions and invective as far as I am aware, so I'd suggest the large chip on your shoulder is uncalled for and you should probably back off generally with these issues until you gain more experience about what the community consensus is generally or you might burn all your bridges (if it isn't too late already). You seem far too emotionally invested about whether a news blog is reliable for anyone to have a meaningful conversation with you and you miss all the nuance. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to know where I "narrowly avoided being blocked" with my contributions? Also, since you bring it up, WP:NEWSBLOG states "use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process." This is true for quite a few "news blogs" and this one included. Don't shout policy that you only read your meaning into. Since you say I'm too emotionally invested, please take the opinions of others here saying that the blog is unreliable. Jimbo is not always "100% right" and in this case he is wrong, as is shown by not only me but others on this page. IRWolfie-, you came close to breaching WP:NPA there, and I'd appreciate it if you'd not drop further toward that level. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 00:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

BLP has more stringent standards for reliable sources than most articles. for good reason. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 00:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Have you looked at the circumstances at where it was used? It wasn't being used in a BLP. Jimbo is human, but personally I think some people are using this event to jump down Jimbo's throat over a complete non-issue. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

BLP applies everywhere where a living person is being talked about. Thus, BLP applies on talkpages. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 20:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Personally Jimbo, I think you should count yourself lucky that we have admins like Bbb23, and doubly lucky that you haven't helped drive a good Wikimedian away. Reso lute 14:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

(ec) The line between "you should resign" and "you're fired" is essentially meaningless in the real world, and I think it is directly analogous here. It is you who has disappointed me with your behavior in this instance, Jimbo (not that there is any reason you'll care about my opinion, but there it is). LadyofShalott 14:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You're not making yourself look at all good by trying to bully one of our best admins into resigning his sysop bit. And that's what it is - bullying. If Bbb23 does actually cave into you, and I hope he won't, you should be ashamed of yourself. Black Kite (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not splitting hairs, it's completely analogous to the difference between someone asking me to take a break from editing in some area, or making the case that I be topic banned from that area for a while. Count Iblis (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

"And I do think that Bbb23 should resign his admin bit if he can't change his ways". That could be said of any mis-action people make on wikipedia. Whether that is true or not in the long term is something that should only really be mentioned after all other options are over after a pattern of ignoring feedback. Pre-emptively throwing it out there before getting a response from the admin about a single incident and when there is zero history of mis-action seems to only create unnecessary antagonism and to derail the conversation about the specific incident in question. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there no middle ground here? I disagree with what Bbb23 did, but I have no doubt his heart was in the right place, and he voluntarily disengaged. Similarly, while I don't think Bbb23 should resign, I don't see anything wrong with Jimbo stating his opinion that he should do so. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Jimbo are you under the influence? You cite a blog as RS? If Bbb23 should step down for this, you should have walked away from wiki about 5-6 years ago. You have completely lost touch with the community and are totally detached from it. PumpkinSky talk 22:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand a lot of people being upset or disappointed with/at Jimbo, however, really, the people I am upset with are the people bashing Jimbo calling him "god-king" and such and acting like HE'S the bully... there is probably no one that gets attempted bullying more than Jimbo. If he does some thing unilaterally to help us, he's vilified; if he doesn't he's vilified for not acting or speaking up. Jimbo created this for all of us! Seriously, how would you feel if you actually got off your computers and invented something that changed the world, and then people were constantly upset with you because you dared to try to keep it the way you envisioned it would grow... and what he did in this instance isn't even about that... you yell and scream and want him to just have no powers and be "one of the bunch" and when he does something that ALL of us have the right to do- eg: call for someone to resign; you have a cow. He didn't desysop bbb23 himself (though he does still have that power technically?). I can go to any page, call for any admin to resign for any reason, and you know what happens? The admin resigns or he/she doesn't. That's all, I cant be sanctioned or blocked or banned for it. And frankly some of the things said to Jimbo are so uncivil it's ridiculous. Would many of you treat the owners/founders of the business you work for the way you talk to Jimbo? I know if one of my employees came up to me and talked to me like this, I sure would not trust them to be able to do their work efficiently and courteously, and I'd have to look into whether it was serious enough that they shouldn't be working there.97.85.208.225 (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Excellent comment. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Consider the Jimbo-test: Check how an admin disrespects Jimbo, and then think how they will treat an anonymous user. Bingo. -Wikid77 05:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you Pumpkin, blogs are used as sources on wikipedia, and with due care they can be used reliably, particular WP:NEWSBLOGs. Considering it was being used to show the coverage was far ranging, it does the job admirably, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Can we step back a moment?

Does Jimbo get any special treatment when engaged in normal old editing? Nope. When he's editing, he's "just another editor", same as anyone editing who happens to have advanced privileges. Bbb23 did right in not treating him in any special way.
Do I think Bbb23 made a mistake here, considering Jimbo as "just another editor"? Yes. Talk pages are not nearly as exposed to the public as the article page, and exist for the discussion of things like reliability of sources and proposed edits. Talk page redactions should only occur under extreme circumstances, and this wasn't one of those. Bbb23 should have allowed the discussion to continue.
Should Bbb23 be desysopped (or resign)? No. Every editor screws up, and every admin screws up, the writer of this comment most certainly included. If we desysopped for simply screwing up, we'd have no admins. If we banned for that, we'd have no editors.
Should Bbb23 back off this subject in an administrative capacity? Yes. This was, despite the above, a very bad call. Talk pages are for discussion of sources and the like; removing comments about such short-circuits this process.
Should BLP enforcement enjoy a "special place"? It's a shame it took Jimbo getting nailed to notice it, but no. NPOV is our cardinal content policy. ALL other policies, BLP included, must ultimately be weighed against NPOV. If there were a conflict between NPOV and BLP, NPOV would and should control. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- Now that's plain nuts. (I meant NPOV trumping BLP; not the entire comment.)Joefromrandb (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

No qualification tests for admins: We do not have qualification tests, nor competency tests, nor even intelligence tests to certify admins, as you know. Each wp:RfA is essentially a set of ad hoc question-and-answer sections, with no formal process for ensuring an admin understands the current policies, and no follow-up education to explain to admins how a news blog became a wp:RS reliable source, for some cases, in May 2010. This situation has created a dangerous environment where various admins are deleting text, or blocking users, with no certification of understanding the way in which Wikipedia works today. Consequently, a person could be under police investigation, or the target of state-sponsored entrapment, and admins would be deleting the sourced text about the related police activity, totally out-of-touch with the connections between the police and the unsubs. It is as though wp:BLP has become a state-sponsored tool to heighten police actions. It is just too funny. We really need more admins with knowledge of criminal justice to be involved. -Wikid77 05:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- Please read WP:NEWSBLOG. It does not say that all blogs on news websites are reliable sources. It only talks about those things on news websites that are just called blogs, but are really more like sections of the newspaper. This blog is not one of those. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 13:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPTALK states that "contentious material" that is poorly sourced should not be present in any talk page. My view is that the policy does not exclude the "source" itself which is considered reliable by more than one experienced Wikipedian. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

After reviewing this incident myself, I think Jimbo was entirely justified in asking for Bbb23 to resign. Jimbo's post(s) to the talk page in no way violated BLP. There's unfortunately an ever-increasing, inane bureaucracy that polices articles and even talk pages in ways that have nothing to do with the five pillars. The latest example I found is someone removing photographs from the external links because... gasp... the photographer doesn't have a biography on Wikipedia. Believe it or not, this insanity is actually written down nicely in teh rulz (#11), obviously by someone who has far too much time on their hands creating such rules instead of writing articles. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Please tell me how a blog is a reliable source for this, and how when questioned saying that he is "100%" correct 3 different ways is acceptable for someone who wishes to be an administrator (as Jimbo is). ~Charmlet ^-talk- 13:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  - You're not making any sense to me. Care to rephrase your question? Assuming it's not entirely rhetorical... Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
    - Regardless of that, you're missing the point. Of course Jimbo is allowed to ask an admin to resign. Any of us are. Equally however, that admin is perfectly well allowed to ignore them. But then we get this rather disturbing diff, where Jimbo suggests that he could "recommend" Bbb23's desysopping, with the insinuation that he had the power to do that. Last time I looked, reverting Jimbo wasn't a criteria for that. Even if that's not what he was claiming, it places a chilling effect on anyone disagreeing with him. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
      - In this example, I disagree with you; not wishing to be disagreeable however. Best regards.—John Cline (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
It took me a while to find this again: there's only one Romanian mobster with a wiki biography. Which is not that surprising because the editor who wrote that page was quickly hounded off Wikipedia by a BLP "enforcer", who is himself banned now. Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Fabulous - an article containing what would be multiple BLP violations if unsourced, yet only sourced to articles in a language I'd guess fewer than 1% of Wikipedians can read. Facepalm Black Kite (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Surely User:Black Kite is not saying that it matters that the sources are in a language that only "fewer than 1% of Wikipedians can read", because if Black Kite is saying that is a reason for an article to be deleted then he/she would be sorely wrong to the point of incompetency as policy is quite clear on accessing sources (it doesn't matter if YOU can personally see the source and understand it, as long as SOMEONE somewhere can in theory). And surely User:Someone not using his real name is not saying that the 5P is all that someone needs to consider when making policy decisions, enforcing policies, or writing policies? Since the 5P are an essay, and do not predate the major policies, and the FAQ on the 5P talk page makes it explicitly clear that policy does not flow from the 5P and 5P is itself not a policy. I'm quite concerned about a lot of the comments made around Wikipedia lately... perhaps we have too much time for drama to read our policies and know how Wikipedia works, because we are too busy arguing about what Jimbo said in a talk page somewhere? Do apologize for calling out two excellent editors for what I'm sure are minor miswordings on their part and I'm sure they know the correct policy. I had to make a point that drama is full in Wikipedia and we waste time on this when we could be boning up on what policy truly is and enforcing it as needed in article-space and not here on Jimbo).Camelbinky (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Did I say it should be deleted? No. But we have been here before on BLPs being sourced to foreign language sources only, yet later turning out to not actually source the claims in the article. I am quite aware - obviously - that foreign language sources are not disallowed - all I am saying it that on obscure BLPs which contain very negative claims I would hope that we would at least have some sort of oversight. Still, now it's been raised here, perhaps someone who speaks Romanian can check that it is all in order :) Black Kite (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a witch hunt going on

I don't know where else to post this, i tried the ANI board but some users ignore what i have to say, make claims without evidence and spam the topic and use ad hominem. There should be a policy guided - evidence based process if people want to ban editors, instead there is an anti science atmosphere and ignorance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#A_group_of_users_framing_me_as_a_potential_fringe_and_making_allegations Prokaryotes (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The 'anti-science' atmosphere is one that objects to an anti-vaccination website [21] being used for an assertion that "A database of vaccine research documents mounting evidence which describe serious adverse effects to vaccination in the scientific literature". Prokaryotes combines POV-pushing with a complete inability to comprehend Wikipedia policy regarding sourcing, NPOV, copyright, and just about everything s/he does... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

How can a collection of science studies on adverse effects of vaccines be anti-science? This edit was reverted, and i posted it for discussion on the talk page. And that was several days ago. Further did you hijacked my AN request, since you and all the people who support your "proposal" ignore the AN request entirely. Prokaryotes (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Sampling bias - in this case, entirely intentional. And that is how WP:ANI works. Anyone who posts there - particularly someone who starts off by accusing others of 'framing' them - can expect their own behaviour to be looked into. So far, you've provided no evidence whatsoever of anyone 'framing' you for anything, and a great deal of evidence that you aren't capable of working within Wikipedia policies and guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump (talk) claims = "a complete inability to comprehend Wikipedia policy regarding sourcing, NPOV, copyright, and just about everything ". But why is it that i added a study ( you claim is anti vaccines) is actually calling for stronger vaccines? http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/?p=1321#.UiBIuT9uobo Or why is it that i added [[22]]CDC and FDA[[23]] content to the wikipedia? Prokaryotes (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As Andy said, if you select only evidence which agrees with your pre-existing beliefs, and ignore all evidence which contradicts your pre-existing beliefs, then that is a deeply unscientific use of the scientific literature. And that's exactly what you've done.

I didn't participate in the AN/I thread you started, but on review it suggests that Prokaryotes is ignoring this site's content and behavioral policies in order to promote his personal views on vaccine safety. He's generated a substantial amount of clean-up work for other editors as a result. That's to be expected with new editors - after all, I generated a lot of work for other editors when I was new and didn't know my way around - but I see no prospect of improvement since he seems totally resistant to feedback. Because we don't have any effective means of dealing with these sorts of editors, who are totally unsuited to this particular project, these situations tend to fester until everyone is totally fed up. I think that's the frustration you're seeing in the AN/I thread - Prokaryotes has exhausted everyone's patience because he doesn't actually listen to what anyone else has to say or make any effort to understand how this site works. MastCell ^Talk 17:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I did follow all rules of wikipedia once i was aware of them. I uploaded an image with an image description 2 month ago which AndyTheGrump claism is a "copyvio", but after an editor reverted my addition i went to the copyright board and their peopel said it might be fair use, however i did not re-added the image, instead i added a link. Then there was an editor who claimed i copyvio some content text, once i was aware i was carefully to avoid these violations, checked terms or re-worded additions i made. The link AndyTheGrump cites above is to a database, and after it got reverted i tried to find a solution on the talk page, and i still believe that is the place where this entire discussion should evolve. If you follow the proposal to ban me for my unknown mistakes i made, and which i afterwards was careful to avoid then you show that you are very new user unfriendly. Even though no matter how this pins out, im shocked how the internal decision process is run here. Show me the evidence where i repeatedly didn't follow a specific rule or pushed a certain point of view, other than the afford of me to establish a neutral objective point of view. Prokaryotes (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Andy, since you say ANI posters "can expect their own behaviour to be looked into", I should mention that you never did strike your comment here. Recently I noted that you voted against lifting Sceptre's topic-ban which had been initially been imposed as a byproduct of action against you. Your debate and reversions with Prokaryotes seem to be aggravating his situation. In general, this illustrates that WP admin process would work much better with a random jury in charge of the final decision than by having a process dominated by whoever is motivated to join a specific discussion, but for now, I think you at least should reevaluate your approach. Wnt (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but what does that link have to do with the current discussion? This is a complete side tracking with some grievance from before. Are you trying to provide a demonstration of " a process dominated by whoever is motivated to join a specific discussion" by joining the discussion in the same way yourself? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, we should have a better way. Right now Wikipedia administration is like this, a wild "boomerang" bouncing endlessly back and forth. Still, he sort of did literally ask for it. :) Wnt (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Login fails to set http username

Update: The http usernames have been fixed for some browsers, but not all. -Wikid77 04:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I am forced to edit in https protocol, now, because I cleared my browser cache, and after multiple login attempts, only the https pages show the current username, and all http pages show "Login" with IP address. Due to all the lost time in the past 2 months for other MediaWiki fiascos, I will simply edit pages in https secure-mode in order to make some progress despite all these fatal errors in the Wikipedia software. They have managed to make http protocol so secure that it doesn't allow usernames now. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

i've noticed that too, I think. it seem like every so often, when I go to a wiki page using http (like from google), I get logged out. I probably wouldn't notice before editing, if it were not for the fact that I use the MonoBook skin, and skins only works when logged in. kind of annoying... -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

See this page on Meta and lots of threads on the technical village pump. Graham87 05:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikid77, why would you NOT want to edit in https protocol? Editing in http leaves you vulnerable to snooping and session hijacking. I don't really understand what you are complaining about.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I have had my security settings very high, to be warned of potential virus/malware sites (I lost the bootblock on 1 of 4 PCs), but I am getting familiar with https crossing between various websites, so the wiki-editing is easier now. Also, I tend to use what other editors see, but since "everyone" is also switching to https protocol on WP, then that is another reason to use it and better understand what other users are seeing. Overall, it is quick when all pages are https now. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm very interested in what you are saying but I don't really understand you yet. What happens that is negative with respect to Wikipedia editing when you have security set to very high? What do you mean by "https crossing between various websites"? For me, the switch to https was totally and completely seamless and I didn't have to do anything differently at all. So I'm having trouble understanding what problems people might have.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I had my browser set to restrict the access to trusted websites, and ask before crossing from enwiki to meta and such. -Wikid77 05:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Although I find working in http and https indistinguishable when doing regular editing, I sometimes find that checking diffs can take longer in https than http. (This becomes an issue when I'm clicking on dozens of diffs in reviewing an arbitration request.) I'm not sure if that's a common observation nor if there's anything that might help address it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipediocracy

There is a case discussed on AN/I were Beeblebrox is complaining about harassment from Wer900. Putting aside my opinion (that it's not that much of a big deal) and just considering for argument's sake that Wer900's behavior is problematic harassment, I was wondering why we would tolerate editors here to behave in a problematic way on Wikipediocracy. The rules were tightened recently, you cannot link to some inapropriate discussion on Wikipediocracy. But Beeblebrox' complaint was that Wer900 was making false statements about him behind his back. And then it doesn't really matter that this was done on Wikipedia. It was precisely not that Wer900 contacted Beeblebrox and told whatever he had to say about him right in his face, quite the opposite.

So, it seems to me that we should have a rule that says that editors here should not harass other editors, regardless of where that is done, here on Wikipedia or elsewhere. The enforcement of such a rule is not as difficult as it seems to be, you don't need to police the entire internet. Harassment will be perceived as such, the moment an editor here finds out about it. Then if on Wikipediocracy there is a thread about an editor here that amounts to harassment and we know that some editors here are contributing to that harassment, we can take action against these editors. In case of doubt about whether the editors are really the Wikipediocracy contributors, we can ask the editors in question if they have made the harrassing statements. They can then deny that, and even if that denial is not 100% credible, a denial still amounts to they distancing themselves from whatever they are accused of having said on Wikipediocracy. Count Iblis (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Really we already do, its just a matter of enforcement. But really do we care what happens over there? I read the discussions sometimes and have even left comments in the past one some (but not in several months) and generally that site is just an internet version of the Old guys from the Muppets. So if they want to sit over there and bicker about our problems, let them. Generally we can't fix our own probelms here, so their sniping isn't going to make a difference. Kumioko (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

"Old guys from the Muppets" is pretty damned close to right, actually... There's histrionics every time there is a link to that site, how do you propose to document violations, Count Iblis? A secret court with secret testimony? Isn't ArbCom busy enough already? What is "legitimate" criticism and what is "harassment," may I ask? Was Prioryman "harassed" over Gibraltarpedia? Was User:Qworty "harassed" over his BLP editing? Not so easy to tell, is it? WPO serves a purpose, whether one likes it or not, whether one admits it or not... Yep, there are excesses. Yep, there are some people there who absolutely would love it if WP crashed and burned in the morning. Yep, there are some people there with vendettas. That's show biz. There are already policies and precedent in place regarding off-wiki harassment. Indeed, what's the purpose of this thread, other than to stir up another round of dramahz??? Carrite (talk) 04:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that it's better to get rid of artifical boundaries where it then matters whether you posted something here or in some other site. We are now forced to enforce the rules that deal with violations of artificial boundaries and you can then get silly results (e.g. editor A being banned for linking to site X where Wiki editor B harasses editor C, but no action is taken against editor B because he didn't post anything here on Wikipedia). By not having silly rules but instead dealing directly with the core problem, you are less likely to get such silly effects. This will then also lead to a "harassment defense" when accusations of problematic editing are made to be less likely to succeed, simply because the editors making the case against the problem editor will take care to avoid behaving badly on Wikipediocracy. So, any real evidence aginst some editor here is then less likely to be "contaminated" by "harassment". Count Iblis (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Nobody cares about a wiki-reputation: It might seem difficult to believe, how the off-site insults do not really matter much, but look at the implications. Even a massive count of insults is of little consequence, as evidenced by all the misinformed peculiar times when people have imagined somehow "Jimbo was wrong" (when not really). An accountant would probably conclude, "No one would attend a speech by a person claimed to be wrong 10,000 times", but the general public is smarter than that, and most people are able to discount the false accusations, or just ignore them as irrelevant, to the more obvious signs of success and insight. I attended college at Georgia Tech, with the top 10,000 straight-A students from every school in the United States, where average entrance scores (SAT >98% percentile) exceeded Harvard University, and everyone has a choice of how to set their focus. Some editors, here, have hinted that they are famous people who could command high fees to give a talk at a conference, and some have been totally insulted in their low-key avatars here. But this is "life in the big city" where there is always another stage, or another neighborhood of friends to meet. After a few days, no one really cares about a wiki-reputation, and they judge each situation as it happens. However, I commend the actions of admins who deter others from posting the insults here, but do not worry too much. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko observed that "generally that site is just an internet version of the Old guys from the Muppets". That is a fairly apt description despite the silly scaremongering that turns up here form time to time. If Wikipedia is The Muppet Show, Wikipediocracy is Statler and Waldorf, occasionally heckling the performances from the balcony. Seems like a lot of fuss about some cranky old guys. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, come to think of it, that works for WP, too — lots of chaos and people interrupting one another, lame jokes and poorly writing, and puppets everywhere... nerk, nerk!Carrite (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Mahna Mahna... MChesterMC (talk) 12:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Asaram Bapu article being repeatedly sanitized by BLP enthusiasts

Hi, Jimbo. It is quite frustrating that a lot of editors there are trying to sanitize the article, expunging comments made by Asaram and his son and removing the material on ongoing criminal investigations. There is a criminal proceeding underway against Asaram Bapu and his son over the mysterious deaths of 2 little boys in their school on their ashram in 2008. Editors have repeatedly tried to remove it, previously asking for more references and after getting them, still removing the section, asking for consensus before adding this material.[24] What is going on here? Does the BLP policy not allow addition of well-referenced material on criminal chargesheet against an individual without "consensus"? I think that we have to consider either explaining the BLP policy in clear detail or revisit the policy. --Crème3.14159 (talk) 11:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I recommend in this particular case discussion on the talk page before adding anything to the article that might be considered contentious. Your own editing in this area has been contentious and biased. I see that IRWolfie is giving you advice - I recommend that you take it and slow down.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Crème3.14159 is now blocked for a week, and the user's talk has strong suggestions that they change their user name (cream + 3.14159 = creampie).

IRWolfie- has posted at AN (diff) recommending that the article be fully protected due to the extreme BLP violations which are occurring now that Bbb23 has disengaged from that article. With so many eyes now on the article, and Crème3.14159 blocked, there is no problem, but when there was just Bbb23, their work was indispensable. Some acknowledgment of that at User talk:Bbb23 would be appropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Except that Bbb23 went too far ... There isn't a dichotomy here between no BLP and over the top enforcement. There is a third way. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It is likely that Bbb23 was not up to date with developments in the case as it was only a short time before that a legal process had commenced, and when commentary was more factual and less sensational. Johnuniq (talk) 09:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

That seems right. He might have been more up to date had he read the links to reliable sources that I posted, rather than simply removing them.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

My email

Mr. Wales, two days ago I sent you the email. Could you please tell me, when you're going to respond? Thanks. 50.174.76.70 (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I just got it today (it was stuck in my spam filter over the weekend) and you should expect an answer by Friday.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. The "mentor" has just nominated his user page to be deleted with the reason: "slightly confusing to begin with".Please be aware I took screenshots of the page, and I could email them to you if needed. 50.174.76.70 (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Wealthfront debris

Jimbo, about a month ago, you hatted a discussion about how Wikipedia seemed to have been abused by a marketing professional working for Wealthfront. Despite the fact that the article about Wealthfront was deleted, there is still a bit of "debris" lying around, for example: here, here, here (by a now blocked user), here, and here. A TechCrunch article authored by a Wealthfront executive has also been spammed into Wikipedia, and other similar efforts have been made. Is it okay to leave Julia Barrett's marketing ploys in place on Wikipedia, or would you recommend that they be rolled back, or would you prefer to hat this discussion for some reason? -- WF watcher (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that policy on advertising makes that obvious. if it appears to be an advert, remove it. see the template below.

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 20:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be no particular issue here for me to personally get involved with, as this has nothing to do with me in any way, and as it involves no particularly interesting philosophical or policy questions for the project of the sort that I like to discuss here. I checked a few of the above edits, and all the ones that I saw should be obviously reverted.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Clown school for rouge admins

I am thinking we need some new forms of humor here, and ways to let others know when the pranks are played. For example, in some cases, just tell new users how the misspelling of the word "rogue" in "rogue admin" (a loose cannon) led to all the humor about wp:rouge admins. Similarly, I have created the humor page "wp:Jimboning" (aka "Jimbo stoning") to explain the contrived dogpiling of the Jimbo-was-wrong insults. A joke is funny the first time, but the Jimbo-is-wrong game has been getting old, and it is becoming harder to tell when the admins are prank-carping their "disappointment" about your good decisions. I know some admin insults are intentional, such as by users banned from this page, but we are gaining many new users now, with professional backgrounds, and when they realize, "Hey, that many people cannot be so stupid as to think Jimbo is wrong" then just link them to "wp:Jimboning" to explain the Jimbo-is-wrong pranking. It's a tired joke, and we need some new ideas (non-bully pranks) to improve the admin "clown school". -Wikid77 (talk) 09:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The redlink above is because your "humor" page has been moved. You'll find it at User:Wikid77/Jimboning. Bishonen | talk 10:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC).

(OK, I'll play along) I am utterly shocked, shocked to see that page moved, as yet another nefarious sub-plot to conceal the Jimbo-is-wrong conspiracy of the rouge admins. ;-) -Wikid77 (talk) 16:10, 3 September, 04:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

:-) Amusing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea

Jimmy,

I think the problem is Bradley Manning the Topic versus Chelsea Manning the person.

I think you should create a Bradley manning (topic) page and then link to Chelsea manning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.144.188 (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea but I don't think it works. We don't usually have 2 articles about a person, one as a "topic" - I'm not really sure what that means.

My own view, and I'm carefully monitoring the data daily, is that we need to consider holding a new vote earlier than the 30 days originally specified by the closing admins, on the grounds that significant new information has emerged. In particular, the New York Times announcement came late in the voting process, and votes cast after that time ran 2-1 in favor of Chelsea. Perhaps even more persuasive and slightly astonishing is that Fox News is now using "Chelsea" on their website. I don't have access to watching Fox News on television so I don't know what they are doing during their hard news segments. Notice that's different from what their opinion commentators do.

Reviewing the votes, I think a strong consensus will have emerged already, due to the strong consensus that has emerged in reliable sources.

Before a reopening happens, though, it would be worthwhile to take a look at what reliable sources have not made the switch, if any. I've actually been unable to find any. I don't think anyone can reasonably object to us doing what all or virtually all or the vast majority of media are doing - such is the core principle of WP:COMMONNAME.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Take a look here Jimbo: Talk:Bradley_Manning/October_2013_move_request - we are building up the case for the inevitable move request #2, and documenting sources that use Bradley vs. Chelsea. What we really need is a new media cycle - the gender story is played out, the sentence has been delivered, so something else of note needs to happen to get people to fire up their typewriters again. The few fox bits I've seen have not shied away from "Bradley", but I don't know what they're doing recently. Not that we should follow them... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that what 24.20 is saying is to have separate Chelsea Manning and Trial of Bradley Manning articles. That way, it avoids having Manning's biography at a title that's potentially offensive, but means people searching for information on the trial who don't realise that "Bradley" and "Chelsea" are the same person don't run the risk of seeing the name "Chelsea" and thinking they've come to an article on someone else's trial. As I understand it Manning's legal team have already said they don't object to the name "Bradley" being used in reporting of the trial itself. Mogism (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a point of view fork.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but we already have separate articles on the trial and on Manning - follow the two links above. I think what the IP is suggesting is to change the titles. Mogism (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Lots of people have had legitimate complaints about the information in their bios including wishes to have the bio deleted....in some circumstances we have have worked hard to rectify these complaints and in others we have told the subjects that we can't do a thing, even though we could have. What's so important about the bio in question? Have we gotten complaints from the subject or their legal representatives?--MONGO 18:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- It is wikipedia editors who are driving the change here which is often not the case in the type of cases MONGO mentions. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

A Chelsea-persona page sounds excellent but too much resistance: There has been too much arguing to reach a broad consensus for a better solution about Manning. Ideally, we could re-redirect "Chelsea Manning" to a new page "Chelsea Manning (persona)" to summarize all the massive coverage about Chelsea Manning, in the new persona, plus the history of the new name along with the months/years ("Breanna"?) which led to this notable new name, then include some background leading to the old spy persona, "Bradley Manning". A similar fork has been made with "Audie Murphy" as the page primarily about his military career, but then his major acting career is covered by "Audie Murphy filmography" even though he was far more famous as an actor for 21 years, with older films even shown on network television stations to millions of viewers who did not study World War II. In fact, I was stunned when I read the intro of page "Audie Murphy" and it failed to mention "actor, songwriter" in the first sentence (only in the infobox). Clearly, Manning will be remembered, far more years, as the transgender whistleblower/spy, because in recent years, "whistleblowers are a dime a dozen" even after leaking numerous secret documents. Perhaps many years from now, we will have automated subarticle wizard-bots which will follow obvious rules of notability (e.g., counting related news articles over years from 5,000 top newspapers) and then recommend creating a 2nd article in cases where a person has 2 major identities with vast sources about each, unable to provide NPOV-balanced text within just one page without seeming wp:UNDUE text, with the massive details about the newer persona. The "transgender spy" is a huge, huge storyline which will echo for years, much like a person who later became an actor, but under an alias name, as compared to the ordinary "whistleblower who" as just one of many. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- I would suggest doing nothing, other than reviewing relevant polices and changing them where required and there is consensus, until the second RM happens as it unquestionably will within 27 days as the first one was without consensus, and as Jimbo says the RSs are changing/have changed. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Am not sure "transgender spy" is the big story you make it out to be. I think Manning will always be remembered, first and foremost, for the leaks. The TG stuff will be ancillary, a footnote. I certainly don't think this merits two articles at this point.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

As WP:CRYSTAL reminds us, predicting the future as WP editors is futile. The transgender story is big, partly cos attitudes are changing so fast in the world in this new century on LGBT issues. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

How do think the transgender story compares to the leak of classified documents story? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the huge notability of the leaks story is what makes the transgender issue so notable, I dont think comparing the two stories is a good way of looking at this. We saw something similar in the UK where the most famous convicted pedophile is not the one who committed the most infamous crimes but the one who was already notable for something else, Gary Glitter. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I suggested here recently a split between person and persona might occasionally be appropriate for the BLP of a performer (Cat Stevens, Lady Gaga might be candidates). But this should not be done for Manning, because Chelsea Manning is not a persona but simply a person, the same person formerly and occasionally known as Bradley Manning. Wnt (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, as usual, Wikipedia policies. The sensible thing to do would be to use "Bradley" for events prior to the sex change announcement (and for topics related to events that primarily occurred before the announcement, such as the trial) and "Chelsea" for events after. You may be able to change sex, but you can't change history. Wikipedia is not allowed to do this. Also, SlimVirgin posted this to the page:

I've obtained clarification of Manning's statement today from her lawyer, David Coombs, which I'm sharing with his permission. Regarding the pronoun, he wrote that the female pronoun should be used only for post-announcement material.

and I'd think this should apply to the name too. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Which is the legal conundrum rather than the LGBT viewpoint. Manning has always been a "she" but has also been known as "Bradley" and she will have to use "Bradley" in the future at least officially. The defense argued that the stress of gender dysphoria was a mitigating factor. That's notable but WP has a tight-rope line that needs to report that fact without advocacy and without propagating a stereotype of victimhood and instability that would be damaging to other transpeople in particular and LGBT community as a whole. It is up to the individual reader to decide whether Manning is a victim of a transphobic army or whether she is a criminal and transgender is merely footnote to her crime - that will never be decided by WP. Why Manning chose the venue she did is not known but not without suspicion of an agenda that WP should be very careful not to step in. It has been known for a while before her press release that she was seeing a counselor for feelings of gender dysphoria and she had referred to herself as "Breanna" and this was stressful for her. Not all LGBT advocates are particularly pleased with that being used as a mitigating factor, though. [25][26][27][28]. WP can and should treat Manning with respect and dignity and also with impartiality. --DHeyward (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Neutral POV, Agenda Pushing, and Forming of Tribes.

Jimbo, I am a sociology student (second career) pursuing my masters (to teach in Community Colleges) and possibly a PhD later. I am an infrequent editor on wiki but I like to use it for quick look up of information and references in the articles. My concern is that controversial areas have become agenda pushing articles and do not maintain a neutral pov. That is expected to happen but what concerns me is the tactics used by some to silence an opposing viewpoint which include deleting an articles content and then redirecting the page without nominating the article for deletion. An example is Virginia Society for Human Life by Roscelese in July 2013 which was restored 1 SEP 2013. She was giving well intentioned warnings on her talk page which she rapidly deleted. The warnings may not have met all the intricate posting rules or they may have unsure? They were not defaming and were there to point out her actions of deleting an article contents (vandalism) and edit warring on other articles with a warning to report her actions.

What troubles me most is she has recommended many accounts for deletion (with some success) when they oppose her agenda which is obvious. She is quite militant in pushing her POV and is gaming the system with the support of a usual cast. However she continues with her intimidation unchecked because of tribal warfare among editors. There are editors forming tribes with even admins joining them. These tribes have been successful deleting articles and banning editors with opposing views. This is destroying the image of Wikipedia as maintaining a neutral POV. I am sure you have heard much of this before and there is no easy answer. Would having more scrutiny of admins be possible? Some are out of control and seem to be able to continue without much being done. Would implementing an even higher standard for admins be possible? Any admin seen pushing agendas should be removed much earlier and easier. They are the backbone of wiki and I believe there has to be a higher standard for the admins to create a more neutral atmosphere. Thanks for your consideration of my concerns. I have an account but have choose to remain anonymous to avoid edit warring which I do not have time for. If you want me to id myself leave me a message here of where to email someone in private and I will. I am sure I have committed some violation of protocol and I sincerely apologize for whatever rule/s I have broken. Thanks again. 208.54.40.134 (talk) 22:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Computer systems often need limits to control over-active users: You have raised many issues for Jimbo to discuss. A common topic of discussion has been term limits for admins, as with the Swedish Wikipedia's limit of 1-year terms for admins (begun in 2006), who must run for re-approval every year (with re-elections run 4 times quarterly per year). There was massive dislike of the suggested term limits here as annual busywork for admins, but others suggested a compromise of, perhaps, 3-year terms to end the problems of the enwiki "imperial admin class" who seem to imagine themselves as almost "untouchable" to accountability. In fact, a study of intense disputes is likely to show a pattern with a select few "lifer admins" continually involved in blocking or topic-banning people in cases with questionable over-stepping of sanctions. Nice guys tend to get invited away, to other websites, or welcomed into a whole new change of life, outside Wikipedia. In business, a troublesome manager is likely to get promoted away into some other department (by complaints to the chain of command), away from the prior victims, or else a project will get canceled and all managers must start, again, to climb into the management ranks of another project. Yet with WP admins, there are few opportunities for "promotion" elsewhere, and the admin projects have continued endlessly for most of 13 years. However, the frequent approval of new admins, with typical mindsets, tends to dilute the effects of a few admins who try to sway every dispute to have severe sanctions. Another option would be to assign admins into different departments, with limits to their duties in each department. But at the root of the problem, a term limit for admins would simplify removal of admins who have become far too pushy, too cocky, where many people would learn to oppose their re-approval, and end their "imperial reign" over the wiki-peasants. Anyway, there could also be "per-article edit-limits" where a username (or IP address) could be restricted to only 50 edits per month (or such) for specific pages where over-editing has been suspected. In many cases, where a wiki-gang (or "tribe") has formed, then imposing user limits could cause those groups to lose power within a few months or a year or so, without having to prove misconduct during the prior period. They would just go away, as learned with 1-year admin limits in Swedish WP. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikid77 you make excellent points. It brings up a question. If Wiki is to be open to all why do some get to reign like feudal lords (admins) over the peasants (editors) under the well intentioned but ineffective royal court (wiki foundation). The establishment of a representative form of governance by electing admins (parliament) would be a much better system. I never thought of that way until you brought up the idea of elections. That got my hamster wheel moving. It seems wiki is using an archaic form of governance that hinders progress. Possibly Jimbo may like these ideas. 208.54.40.134 (talk) 06:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that you have raised some interesting issues. I'll note you expressed concern about POV pushing tactics (I share the concern), but your main solution involves increased scrutiny of admins. Given that your example involved an action by a non-admin, I hope you will agree that while admin reforms issues might be necessary, they are by no means sufficient to address the problems. Wikid77 mentioned some possibilities. I'll note a minor, albeit important distinction between "terms" and term limits". The Swedish Wikipedia has terms, not term limits. (Assuming the link is accurate). I support terms, and like Wikid77, feel that staggered three year terms would be best to avoid the time sink associated with shorter terms. I would also consider a form of term limits, an enforced time away from the position (perhaps only for a few months), but I'd feel better with a technical adjustment. We do not separate the ability to delete from the ability to viewed deleted material (in computer terms, write access versus read access). While I think it would be valuable for all admins to spend some time viewing the world through non-admin glasses, I am hesitant to fully support this for two reasons. When I am doing OTRS work, it is often valuable to be able to review deleted maternal to help answer a question. Second, I delete a lot of articles, and it is not unusual for an editor to follow-up with a question. If I were to stop being an admin for some period of time, I would not be able to answer those questions during that time period. However, if read access were separated form write access, I could support a three month hiatus from admin status every few years, if I were able to continue to read delated material during the break.

I fear I've delved into minutia (although it illustrates that even simple proposals turn out to have complications), and I'd like to return to the broader issue. As someone knowledgeable in the field, do you have other thoughts on how the tendency for tribal formation, which is supportive of POV rather than NPOV, can be avoided?--SPhilbrick (Talk) 11:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Consider House of Lords+Commons: Jimbo has asked people to discuss the possibility of a (large) "House of Lords" group of appointed admins (like the ~800 lords of Parliament) who would be selected by certain upper-level members of WP or the Foundation, and then the regular admins could be "elected" to limited terms by the general users as a "House of Commons" but with certainly more than 650 in Commons. By using that split between Lords+Commons, then upper-level members could remove rogue lords when they became troublemakers, without the need for re-elections ("desysopping") to trim the House of Lords. Also the lords could be instantly appointed, such as during a special event requiring numerous admins to control some extra areas of WP procedures. Overall, there are many facets to discuss to improve the manpower needed to run WP, but also quickly reduce trouble with rogue admins, perhaps offset by admin-lords quickly appointed to handle the related events. Currently when some admins are removed, there can be large gaps in the voluntary coverage where they were active, so those gaps have been scary to some other busy admins. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Philosophical discussion versus this example - I'd like to encourage philosophical discussion to continue here, but would also like to note that the editing at the example article doesn't strike me as a very good example. The article, currently at AfD, is about an organization that is borderline notable - well within the range of reasonable discourse, and the edit history of the article shows no serious controversy. This is relevant because our philosophical discussions should always be guided by efforts to solve problems that actually exist, as opposed to theoretical problems that are sometimes alleged to exist - and that means that empirical examples should be chosen thoughtfully. If the original poster has a grief against User:Roseclese then that should be pursued in other venues, and should involve bringing forth more evidence than this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Senate and a House

Jimbo, Thanks for encouraging the discussion. I apologize for not being as skilled in the Wiki Way as I should be. The reason I brought that example up was the contents were deleted and then redirected without a discussion or consensus in July effectively deleting the article if only temporary for a month.I have been looking into the wiki culture and may write a paper on it. I have not got that far yet. It is generally not a good idea to get involved with the subject of potential research. It can lead to biases and inaccurate assessments. However I would like to do my small part to help get it working better which is more important than my paper in the big picture. I am throwing out ideas for others to consider. Asking some political science students and academics into the discussion could help. Historians (professionals as well as serious amateurs) with an interest in government would also be beneficial. It is interesting to see how wiki has grown and how the wiki governance (admins) is running into similar issues faced in mankind's political history. It is an impressive undertaking that future historians, sociologists and others will study. Where ends up in the future is also interesting to consider. Thanks again for your time and efforts spent trying to improve wiki.

Moving back to the more constructive debate. I think there is room to try some new forms of governance and have drawn from my memory banks and tweaked some ideas. Here is my Senate and House idea. Consider the possibility of having a Senate for 6 year terms and the Representatives having 2 year terms. Reps would be required to have demonstrated good faith and diligence before being considered for the longer term in the Senate. The Senate would give the stability needed and the reps would allow many more to participate in the process. The Senate candidates from the House would be recommended by the Senators and then elected by the representatives in a open window period allowing both bodies to have a say. Online courses should also be required to be completed before being eligible as a candidate for office in oder to instruct them on the protocols which would lead to better use of the rules of order. The Senate and House would have different courses that would cover their delineated powers. This would lead to more qualified and serious candidates running and eliminate those who do not have the time required to be seriously involved. I would also suggest no campaigning for office other than applying with a essay on why you make a good candidate. People could read it and research you if they like and then decide.

The representative candidates would be recommended by the sitting representatives after applying and having completed some online training courses. They would weed out the troublemakers, inexperienced, incompetent, agenda pushers, etc from the applications by voting and the remaining would be voted on at large. There would have to be a limit on candidates so those with most recommendations would run for office. Possibly a 2 to 1 ratio of candidates to seats open. Registered users of more than 1 year and 500 edits (as a suggestion) could then vote on the three candidates on the ballot. Those receiving the most votes would be installed in office. The House candidates would need at least 2 years of experience and 2000 edits (?) in order to be eligible. Reps could be censured by their body and even recommended for removal. The reps would then be removed by majority vote of the Senate for not holding the high standard of the office. This would allow each body to police its own and allow a higher level to make the final determination. I would also recommend each body staying out of the others business until an approved recommendation is submitted for removal. Limit the mucking around in the others body in order to maintain independent roles.

The Senate would be much smaller (100?) than the house (700?) and thus easier for wiki foundation to oversee, after all it is still a private organization with that right reserved. The foundation would also retain the right to remove individuals without Senate or House approval but should refrain except in extreme cases in order to maintain a welcoming environment. The Senate could also censure its own members and recommend those for removal and with the wiki foundation board's approval be removed. The Senate should also be given more dispute resolution authority than the house due to their higher level of experience.

Elections could be held once a year for reps (50% running at a time) with a 2 term limit for reps and a 1 year wait before running for the house again after 2 terms. 1/3 of the Senate would be up reelection every 2 years with a 1 term limit but be eligible for house elections immediately. The former Senator would then have to go through the house to Senate process again. This might help with the permanent Overlord scenario possibly developing. Any Senator or Rep inactive or with very little activity for more than 90 days would need to be voted on by the appropriate body to be readmitted. They would have to be readmitted at least 30 days prior to the next election or be rescinded by default.

The editors could bring their complaints to the house about other editors and the house would determine if the editor is to be suspended. The short suspensions of less than 30 days (cooling off period) would be without a chance for appeal. Recommendations longer than that would be able to appeal to the house. Any suspension over six months including permanent bans would need to be approved by the Senate with an opportunity to appeal to the Senate.

This process or something like it would allow more editors the chance to participate at a higher level and would create a better way to administer the administrators. It sounds a little complicated but after implementing and getting on schedule the elections should not be so. The 2 bodies would be better trained and more accountable. How each bodies responsibilities would be doled out is beyond my understanding of the wiki world of politics and rules. That could be hashed out by those more experienced and adjusted as necessary to improve wiki. The smaller number of admins could be adjusted upwards if need be. I suggest a smaller body for now because a few of the admins do most of the work. Those dedicated ones should be capable of handling it. Hopefully this will lead to better admins who will be serious about their duties. Some in power now and later will get upset and leave if they lose but that will be good for wiki as they likely were more self interested anyway. This only think tank session and is in no way meant to be pushing my view. It is only some suggestions to chew and spit out if necessary. Hope some of this is helpful. 208.54.40.134 (talk) 05:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC) My humblest apologies for offending anyone.

Indeed, people cannot be expected to believe claims against Roscelese, without numerous diff-links to show a pattern of POV-pushing as opposed to just numerous edits regarding pages related to a common topic, and that activity is best done at wp:AN, where numerous other editors could check the diff-links and perhaps clarify any misunderstandings about various edits which might be due to other factors, rather than the imagined slanting of the texts. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)