User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 174

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 170

←

Archive 172

→

Wikipedians in Residence

Hi Jimmy, just a quick question initially. What are your thoughts about repeatedly using the same volunteers in each country for the Wikipedian in Residence program, should the role primarily be thought of as some form of semi permanent employment, where the same volunteers are attached to different institutions and different projects as necessary, or should the opportunity to work as a Wikipedian in Residence be open to as many members of the Wikimedia community as is practical (subject to qualifications etc) ?

I applied for a role that was of particular interest and relevance to me - I was unsuccessful. The editor who was successful has repeatedly worked as a Wikipedian in Residence over many years, and I honestly don't know if I should be glad that someone with more experience in this sort of role has been appointed, or whether I should be angry that the program appears to have become a closed shop with the same people chosen time after time.

I'd hope you could provide some thoughts on the subject. Thanks, Nick (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

As I'm not familiar with the intimate details of the process of selection, I'm not in a position to offer a specific opinion. But speaking in the abstract, I think that there is a balance between an interest in people who have clear experience and a proven track record, and a desire to build capacity by having different people in these roles. That is to say, like you, I can see both sides of the picture. In any event, it should NOT be a closed shop, but neither should experience count for nothing. I know this thought is very general and might not be very helpful, but it's all I've got right now.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I've watched various WIR programs almost from the beginning of them, and have a pretty good idea how they work, but may not be up on the latest changes. Some of the mechanics do seem a bit strange to me. I'll ping @Wittylama: he or other GLAMers might want to respond or correct any mistakes that I make.

A WIR is selected by the institution, not by Wikipedia or the GLAM project. Clearly the WIR should get along here, esp. with other GLAMers, but I think the toughest thing that the GLAM project could do with an inappropriate WIR is to just ask them to stop using the WIR title. (I personally wish this was tightened up a bit).
I still believe it's the case that the majority of WIRs in North America are not paid, and maybe a slight majority of WIRs in Europe are paid, but at a fairly low level, for a fairly short time.
Given that the institutions pick the WIRs, it's up to them to decide on qualifications, required experience etc.
I believe there are "serial WIRs" who go around convincing institutions to have WIRs, apply, take the job themselves for a short period, and then move on to the next institution when they've gotten things started at the first one. I'd guess that's what you've run into. That method does have a lot going for it, but I can also see some potential problems. I'd AGF until we see actual problems developing however.
Some of this is for all those folks - say with a Masters in Museum Management or similar degrees - who find out that there are a lot more folks interested in Museum jobs than there are museum jobs. God bless 'em - they're just trying to do everything they can to break into a tough field, but I might have a few qualms about Wikipedia's role in this. Or I would have qualms if we started pushing WIRs as internships that are somehow "required" to get a job in the field. Internships, whether unpaid or low-paid, just seem to have a potential for exploitation that makes me nervous (of course not all internships exploit the interns).
Probably somebody closer to WP:GLAM can provide much better info. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Eh this is the RSC WIR isn't it? Rather any general trends I think its just a case of them choosing the person with the most direct experience with wikipedian in residence stuff rather than subject area experts or even general STEM people. Which makes sense since they are not exactly short of chemists at their end.©Geni (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Geni it is. So how do I or anybody else interested in becoming a WiR get involved, if these jobs are always going to be given to the handful of editors with experience in WiR stuff ? Nick (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

... presumably the same way as does anyone else applying for positions in markets where the competition is fierce due to small numbers of posts and significant numbers of people already having the requisite experience? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Demiurge1000 you'll need to be less cryptic - are you suggesting forgetting it and leaving the WiR jobs to the few with experience, embracing the exiting closed shop approach, or are you suggesting we bring about some radical changes to make sure that the Wikipedia ethos, of a project that anybody can edit, is extended to the WiR program and everybody who wants to the opportunity to take up one of those rules has the same opportunity and likelihood of being successful, perhaps through developing training programs for those of us who haven't had WiR role after WiR role. Nick (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm all in favour of such training programs. But I don't think my meaning should be cryptic to someone of your age. If you want a job in a particular area, and the competition in that particular area makes it difficult to get such a job, then you work hard to increase your skills, knowledge, experience and expertise such that you are able to compete with the competition. Surely. Going back to training programs - are you in the UK? Did you notice that Wikimedia UK has run a number of free training programs, in different parts of the country, for people intending to train other people how to edit? Have you attended one or more of those sessions? As a trainee? As a trainer? Did you mention this on your application? Remember that such activities, or related activities, are a core part of many WiR positions. Just giving you some ideas here.

I don't believe there is a "closed shop" approach, especially since it's the institutions themselves that make the decisions on hiring. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Well that can cut both ways (as the institutions are likely to prefer similar experience), but either way there is little Jimmy can do about it. In the RSC example, the successful candidate has had a number of short and very part-time roles before, most if not all unpaid, and I think mostly starting after he offered his services (as Liam did to the British Museum, also unpaid). Anyone with plausible wiki-credentials can do that. Other UK WiRs, including myself, had very solid experience in editing training and wiki-working with institutions of one sort or another when they first got a WiR role. The advice above to get involved in training is correct, as this is nearly always a large part of the WiR role. Some of the RSC people already knew Andy as he and I were among those helping User:RexxS at an RSC training event in London in the spring. Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Nick. As a person that helps some UK institutions to set up Wikimedians in Residence projects, I agree with the comments above about being involved in Wikipedia training. I would imagine it may also be helpful if you contact RSC for recruitment feedback - I'm happy to help you with making contact about this. We could also have a chat about upcoming opportunities to collaborate with the chapter. Do get in touch - email may work well daria.cybulska

wikimedia.org.uk.

Hope this helps Daria Cybulska (WMUK) (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It's also worth making the point that, although Andy has had a number of WiR roles previously, this is the first that was organized with, and part-funded by, WMUK. I'm told the other ones have not used any movement funds. Johnbod (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Misleading the readers

DEAR WIKIPEDIA READERS: To protect our independence, we'll never run ads. We survive on donations averaging about £10. Now is the time we ask. If everyone reading this right now gave £3, our fundraiser would be done within an hour. Yep, that’s about the price of buying a programmer a coffee. We’re a small non-profit with costs of a top 5 website: servers, staff and programs. Wikipedia is something special. It is like a library or a public park where we can all go to think and learn. If Wikipedia is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online and ad-free another year. Thank you.

This is the wording of the current, extremely obtrusive fundraising banner. It is quite frankly wrong. The WMF is not small; its staff and costs have ballooned in recent years, spending millions of dollars on stuff the community doesn't want or need. Our independence is not threatened, given that the WMF has at least 6 months of operating reserves and their stash of cash under the bed is getting ever bigger. The donors ought to be informed that their money is not building new content or paying for servers but instead funding the facebookisation of Wikipedia. Discuss. BethNaught (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no 'facebookisation'. Don't speak nonsense.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The ad should be revised to say Wikipedia is "like a moldy basement where most of our editors work from, outdoor spaces like parks blind us, and we don't even get coffee."--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Out of curiousity, what meaningful purpose is this passive-aggressive complaining about Flow meant to accomplish? Reso lute 16:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

A recognition that the WMF's banners are pleading with readers as if they're in financial trouble. Donors think they're keeping Wikipedia alive but actually the WMF is growing its assets at an exponential rate. A comment from Jimmy Wales about the veracity of these appeals, and about how they are organised, would be helpful to inform the community, as would community feedback on the propriety of these appeals. BethNaught (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The banner doesn't say anything about financial trouble. Nor does it even imply it. You called the banner "extremely obtrusive" - just click it and it goes away.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't read the message above as implying we are in financial trouble. Rather, it states that Wikipedia's sustainability depends on donations. That is objectively true. Reso lute 16:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It is clearly unduly emotive (protect, survive), out of proportion to the needs of the WMF, and readers are not told what the goals of the fundraiser are: to tide Wikipedia over or fund an ongoing massive expansion of the foundation? In the past 8 years, WMF expenditure has increased tenfold. The project is clearly sustainable with fewer donations than the WMF is soliciting. BethNaught (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It is actually my view that we could productively use twice as much money as we bring in today. The software is antiquated and needs to be improved dramatically. We have a new executive directory and a new vice president of engineering. Now is not the time to spread FUD about the WMF's engineering focus, but to get involved in helping the Foundation understand our needs.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

According to wmf:Financial_reports, the WMF currently has a reserve of $42M. In 2013 it transferred $12.9M to reserve and in 2012 it transferred $11.7M: essentially excess of income over expenditure. The 2014-5 plan is for a revenue of $58M. How on earth would it be able to spend another $58M a year ("twice as much") when it has been underspending by over $10M a year and has $40M in reserve? Of course, I would have been only to happy to see it allocate about 0.1% of that $42M on fixing the problems with mathematics rendering and editing, but apparently that was quite unthinkable, even though you tried quite hard to help us make the WMF understand our needs. If WMF won't spend its money fixing problems that editors ask to have fixed, and won't fund content creation, it's going to find it rather hard to spend the accumulated $42M reserve, let alone that putative extra $58M per annum. Deltahedron (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Any responsible non-profit will keep at least a year's income/expenditure in reserve. It is prudent financial management. How the income is spent is, of course, another issue. ---Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I have to admit I'm only familiar with UK charity law, where there is a requirement that monies raised must be spent within a reasonable period of receipt, and that trustees should be able to justify the amounts they hold in reserve. I do note that the 2015 plan is to hold the reserve at its current level. However I think my point remains valid, that the Foundation is finding it hard to spend even its current income effectively. Deltahedron (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Methinks the spreading of FUD is done quite competent by those community-averse people in WMF, the anti-social putsch by Erik against deWP and the use of brutal threads against enWP, the complete lack of real discussions about the broken piece of software MV and the power crazy implementation of superputsch, just marketing blabber. They have willingly ditched the communities, if they want to engage again, they have to move towards their employers, i.e. the communities. The WMF is the servant of the community and has to get this fact straight. --♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 17:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Erm. The employer of the foundation is the donating reader not "the communities". --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

What I am advocating is that readers (and editors!) are given an informed choice about how to spend their money. I suspect that most of them are unaware that their money is being used to institute changes, rather they think that all their money is used to keep the servers ticking over. Personally I think that is misleading. Don't you agree? BethNaught (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that the number of people who think that all their money is used to keep the servers ticking over is effectively zero. Certainly, no Foundation communications of any kind ever say or suggest that and we have a very open and transparent budgeting process followed by transparent financial reporting. It's very difficult for me to think about how the Foundation might resolve whatever problem you have, when what you are saying has no relation to reality in the first place.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The reference to servers was synecdoche for essential functions, the minimum necessary for keeping Wikipedia freely available online without adverts. I doubt very much that it is well known that 8% of the foundation's expenditure is spent on fundraising, or that the money they are generously giving will be used to hire, among others, 35 new software engineers, or that they're paying for the WMF's new office floor. Are you honestly suggesting people actually read those financial reports?

How about they say something like "The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organisation which relies on donations to support the communities, expand access to Wikipedia around the world, modernise core software and keep hosting Wikipedia without ads"? Wait, it's less emotive they'd get less money. I didn't myself realise that 8% of whatever money I might have given goes on making these appeals as profitable as possible. BethNaught (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, no. So many of the interlocutors, here, seem to say 'I don't know anything about foundations, or fundraising, or servers, or websites, or really anything, and I blame the foundation.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

If you're accusing me of being deliberately obtuse, please say it plainly. BethNaught (talk) 14:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Deliberately? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

If you are calling me involuntarily obtuse, you might as well come out with it and call me stupid. BethNaught (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

What are you going on about? You, what? Do you not know the difference between you and what you say? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I give up. I don't know what you meant by your comment, I thought you were sarcastically criticising me. I'm about to take a wikibreak anyway. De-watching this page. BethNaught (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It might help this discussion to know exactly where the money goes: what percentage goes to keeping the servers running, what goes to engineering and software development, what goes to content creation, and so on. Can anyone link to a handy summary? Deltahedron (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Tend to agree. Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth I held a position at a student union, funded by fees, and we published a pie-chart breakdown of how those fees were spent; x% on public toilets, x% on clubs & societies, x% on the student office itself, etc. If the pie chart looks good, publish it. If it looks bad, look at yourselves, have a good explanation for what you're in the process of changing, and publish it. Transparency is always the best path. (And, if your reasons for not being transparent are because you can't justify the decisions being made then that is an issue of poor internal decision making not of external criticism.) AnonNep (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Is there a pie chart? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

page 6 Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that but its from the plan rather than Annual Report (I did follow it back to the Financial reports page and will keep an eye of for the 2013-14 version of the latter). AnonNep (talk) 03:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting read. Inter alia, on page 20 it is claimed that Flow is an experimental but already feature-rich alternative to talk pages. Feature-rich? You've got to be kidding if the WMF actually believes that. BethNaught (talk) 08:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's the next accident waiting to happen. The blinkered ivory tower inhabitants seem to have committed themselves to this piece of software, come what may, and until now it's really nothing to be regarded as helpful coming from flow. It's next to completely useless. I fail to see a single "feature" that justifies any single dollar sunk there. But a lot of people work on it, so it has to be implemented, otherwise the futility of this adventure would be noticed. --♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 14:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It's rich from the WMF or someone on its board to criticise the spreading of FUD when the likes of Erik Möller have caused fear and doubt in the community by implementing superprotect, and when the chairman of the board has stated that he doesn't care if people leave over changes and that the community should submit to the WMF's engineering decisions with "zen acceptance". BethNaught (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It is actually my view that we could productively use twice as much money as we bring in today. The software is antiquated and needs to be improved dramatically. We have a new executive directory and a new vice president of engineering. – Jimbo, just to be sure, who exactly is we? The editors, the WMF or who else? – Thx.--Aschmidt (talk) 10:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

First, let's note my typo 'directory' should be 'director' and refers to Lila Tretikov. When I say that we have a new executive director and a new vice president I mean we the community, we the readers, and we the Foundation. I think it's long since time that we drop this silly idea of "the Foundation versus the Community" because it's false and damaging.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Tell that Erik an the like, who putsched against the communities to let their fancy bling-thing MediaViewer stay opt-out, and not opt-in, for some time as the communities decided. He used brutal force instead of arguments explicitly against the communities. It's definitely bad behaviour by people like him abusing his de-facto power that's alienating the communities from those who obviously see themself as something better then the plebs. --♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 13:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Nobody should donate a penny. If the donations dried up, the WMF would be forced to actually listen to the Wikipedia community, instead of working in opposition to it. Everyking (talk) 14:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation does not work in opposition to the community. There is no need to "force" the Wikimedia Foundation to listen. What *is* an effective way forward is for the community to insist that the Foundation continue to follow through on ramping up their investment in understanding the community's needs.

See, there are two theories that one might have to explain why we have had various problems with the relationship between the Foundation and the community, particularly around software development and rollouts.

One view - the deeply cynical and empirically false one - is that the Foundation doesn't care about the community or is in fact actively hostile to the community.

Another view - the correct one as I see it, because I get to see both sides - is that the Foundation developers have worked mostly in isolation from the community, with insufficient processes for consultation, leading to misinvestment in software that the community doesn't want, and hostility and suspicion due to botched rollouts of software that the community does want. This isn't because the developers are bad, but because a huge mistake was made in terms of not investing in appropriate understanding of our real needs.

We have a new CEO who is making this her core mission, and this problem was first correctly identified by our outgoing CEO who led the search process with a view towards correcting the serious deficiencies of the WMF as an engineering organization.

To the extent that some longstanding members of the community are willing to take to heart the classic Wikipedia virtue of "assume good faith" we are now a point of great opportunity. To the extent that people are entrenched in negativity to the point that no new initiatives will be accepted - well, that's a shame.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see the huge difference between the two theories: The self-inflicted isolation (nobody forced the WMF away from the community, it was the WMF who chose the chasm between "us and them" voluntarily) makes the relationship between the WMF and the communities clear: they don't care about the communities, otherwise they would never isolated themselves. If they really thought they did useful work without consultation of their customers, the communities, they are not fit for the job. All those botched software implementations shows, they are indeed bad developers, because without consultation of the customers there can't be a good developer, that's an oxymoron. The pure hatred of the communities was made clear by the extreme brutality of Eriks putsch against the deWP, where he invented and implemented a new "right" just to make the wishes of the community never ever happen. He didn't move as far with enWP, here the ruthless thread of force was enough, but it was the same spirit: pure disdain and hatred of the communities. There is nothing ambiguous about him: he's not fit for any position in WMF because of his proven working against the communities. --♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 15:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Well that's a theory, but it is a rather odd one. Hatred? That's rather a meaningless thing for some stranger on the internet to argue. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a shame there's no such thing as hyperbole-powered servers - ♫ Sänger could keep all the sites going on his own. Neatsfoot (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem here isn't "WMF vs. community", but hierarchy and power on a crowdsourced site, regardless of who holds it. I mean, WP:oversighters are part of "the community", but last month we had just as rough an incident (though on a smaller scale) when they went ballistic deleting any reference to David Cawthorne Haines, including the AfD for the article. This was particularly inexplicable in that the name was widely publicized, they had no objection to the previous information on Steven Sotloff, nor do they now seem to be reacting now to the information about the hostage presently under threat, Alan Henning. There were attempts to discuss the issue, but they didn't participate; to protest an oversight action you're supposed to email them like some sort of oracle, but what's the point of going to email when the whole point is to discuss policy in public? Even with them seeming to change their minds, we don't have the satisfaction or reassurance of hearing them say "we screwed up, we won't do that again." For all I know one of them will read this and crack down on the article all over again. It's like studying the Chinese government, where you can only try to guess what will happen from historical events, and where, admittedly, poking the bear like this is a risky proposition. But while I'm glad that the oversighters seem to have ended their objections, the effective development of Wikipedia resources requires not only that they don't interfere, but that editors be reassured they won't interfere so that they are willing to put in effort for what they expect to be a permanent public resource.

The thing is, between oversighters, bureaucrats, and this superprotection, we have a situation now where there is an entire duplicate layer of "admins over admins" -- special people who can hide and unhide article history from the admins, protect articles from the admins, make and unmake admins, etc. And then there are genuine office actions, developer decisions, and presumably genuine deletions (rather than oversighting, which apparently leaves a record), over that layer! In addition Pending Changes is the start of an extra layer of hierarchy at the user level. Now to ascribe "hate" to such a structure is obviously a mistake; the truth is surely worse, namely dismissal. Those at the top of a hierarchy don't have to consider the lower layers at all. And the thing about hierarchy is, you can use a finite number of editors in convergent series to form a nearly unlimited number of layers of people all ordering one another about, stirring up trouble with one another and interfering with the one person at the bottom who is actually going out and getting the data. (cf. this helpful parable) Wnt (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think either that the line of conflict is 'WMF vs. community', but rather 'superprotect vs. powerless'. There is no free knowledge project without free self-governance by the community. The WMF has done away with our freedom as we knew it. It now behaves in an authoritarian way. I cannot see how Wikipedia should carry on as before. This is why I have stopped editing. Staying behind are those adjusting themselves to the new management, mostly paid editors or those who draw a benefit from the Wikipedia business or, say, apparatus in some way. This is not the end, but it is completely different than it was before. The idealists are gone. I'm watching. – Of course, the OP is right, I have to say. The claim that we have to protect the independence of Wikipedia by donating yet more money to the WMF is utterly false because there has been more than enough money for many years already which is one of the problems that have lead to the current mess.--Aschmidt (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Awful, awful, international push toward yet greater spying powers

Jimbo: I know in the past you have been a great voice speaking out against surveillance and censorship; I can only hope there is some good response to be made this time. There has been extremely little coverage of the passage of an extraordinarily pro-spy law in Australia.^[1][2] I find myself resorting to editorials^{[3][4][5][6] [7]} and even blogs^[8] to find out anything about it, though luckily the EFF linked the bill text. The direct PDF link EFF cites doesn't work), but the fragments can still be accessed from [9] (which cites the same pdf link). The text appears to be just as unbelievably awful as the editorials say: for example, it gives spies total immunity in their operations unless it "causes the death of, or serious injury to, any person; or (ii) involves the commission of a sexual offence against any person; or (iii) causes significant loss of, or serious damage to, property;" -- pointedly excluding torture.^[10] To me it appears to allow imprisonment for so much as mentioning a Wikileaks cable by anyone who has ever made a "contract, agreement or arrangement with" ONA or DIO (whoever they are), or who has ever been an "employee or agent of" someone who has -- a net which I expect any but the wariest resident could readily be caught up with. More systematically, there is the threat they could get a warrant against "the internet" and not merely spy on but maliciously interfere with traffic. Oh, and did I mention this was but the second part of a trilogy of such laws?

This is by no means an isolated phenomenon: apparently Theresa May was regretting she couldn't get a similar "snooper's charter" passed before and vowing similar action [11]. I do not know whether these things are what was called for in a UN Security Council resolution^[12]:

"14. Calls upon countries to help each other build capacity to address the FTF threat and welcomes bilateral assistance to do so. 15. Underscores that Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) is an essential element of responding to the FTF threat. 16. Calls upon States to enhance CVE efforts and take steps to decrease the risk of radicalization to terrorism in their societies, such as engaging relevant local communities, empowering concerned groups of civil society, and adopting tailored approaches to countering FTF recruitment."

What I know is that despite the pretense of emergency, IS is pretty much the same opponent as ever in Iraq, and there is certainly no new crisis demanding anyone give up freedoms they held in the shadow of the Trade Center attack. ISI/ISIS/IS was created directly and solely as the result of U.S. and cooperating allies' attacks on the rulers of Iraq and Syria. Policies like these do not strengthen, but badly weaken any moral authority that the countries making them might have in the world; the notion of such countries turning around and criticizing China for, say, tear-gassing an Occupy protest is so hypocritical as to be nothing but grim comedy. Wnt (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I fear that rational discusions that this approach is on the wrong track is not going to be productive; the arguments why this doesn't work have been made over and over again and yet it didn't have any impact. The list of examples proving that it doesn't work have grown larger and larger, and yet people seem to be intent to draw the wrong conclusions from each example. That's why I think ordinary protests won't work. What could perhaps work is to engage in a false flag operation; just pretend to be a radical supporter of these stupid policies. If you make provocative proposals that go too far in the eyes of many people, you will make news headlines which could lead to a backlash. People may then become more receptive to the arguments why these proposals actually do not work. Count Iblis (talk) 02:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You may be interested to know that we have a GA on the last time such broadcasting restrictions were enacted by the British government, the 1988–94 British broadcasting voice restrictions. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 09:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Discrimination and Offensiveness

Ok I've tried to engage this in a meaningful way but to say I'm angry about this is a pretty big understatment. I have attempted to engage User:Newyorkbrad and also the administrators at AE, discussion has not been forthcoming. I made a now infamous comment here [[13]] that urged everyone that was fighting that this page was not a place for real change (it's still not but if i need to get a few eyes on this that way I will). Since that time I have been dogged by one contributor for a few months now [[14]]. Recently for the second or third time this editor has been attacking my username because it has the word "Hell" in it, I do what any rational person would and start researching and I came upon this comment and thread made this month [[15]]. Now I am a little upset because I'm getting accused of misogyny, racism and add whatever else to the mix, I called no no names in my comment, I made it in a way that I understand many people wouldn't understand but when something actually highly offensive is being said and I ask for enforcement of an arb clause or later a clarification to the arb case ti see if the cases only applied to articles or if they applied to editors as well. I found it to to be the height of hypocrisy that my one comment damn near was an arb case when someone can question a transgender woman their gender identity. [[16]] under the subheading "Defamatory Terms" it reads "Gender identity is an integral part of a person's identity. Do not characterize transgender people as "deceptive," as "fooling" or "trapping" others, or as "pretending" to be, "posing" or "masquerading" as a man or a woman. Such descriptions are defamatory and insulting." Letting go the fact that this decision is closed ) which I will not pursue further I think a clarification is warranted for future reference. Apparently the drama meter is up right now and a big reason is because of the dispute of woman rights, civility and maintaining editing atmosphere that is not demeaning." User:Newyorkbrad states "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&diff=prev&oldid=627256697" that it isn't a big deal but yet again we have an entire arbcase that specifically [[17]] "For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning" now letting go of the request for sanctions I still think this should be clarified because why would we only carry those changes to articles and forsake the editors in question? To answer in implicit terms I am taking this here for a reaction to determine if it's really a non issue, either way I'm getting tired of being followed by a passive aggressive editor who's been getting a free card to drag my name in the dirt. Emailing this to Jimbo too so this isn't lost in the shuffle. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately my email is lately more "lost in the shuffle" than ever before so notifying me here is best. I'm not really exactly sure what you are saying or asking for here, but I would recommend making it very clear that you retract and regret the "infamous comment" (if you do) and if someone accuses you of misogyny, racism, or whatever that you respond with kindness and cheerfulness that you believe very much in the dignity and equality of all people and support that Wikipedia should do the same. If you don't believe that - if you really do think it is ok for people (per your infamous comment) to call others in the project "cunt, queer, nigger" or similar, and that if they do the right answer is for the victim to "pull up your big boy pants or panties" then not only can I not help you, I don't want to help you. It is my strong desire and intent that all those who are being abusive to others be shown the door promptly, without any exceptions for allegedly "great" content - not because I don't care about content but because I *do* care about content - and destructive people do more harm to content (by driving away good editors) than all the content they could produce if they wrote 24 hours a day. They simply are not worth it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo I don't believe it's ok to call people those things but I also think that in context of that argument it was a valid point, I offered months ago [[18]] to let them hat the comment. The question is specifically and foregoing sactions of any kind is comments questioning a persons gender appropriate and why would it not fall under the Sexology/Manning cases. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm still not parsing the question. The last sentence doesn't quite make sense to me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I hope for the sake of the project you are blocked indefinitely. And quickly. What you are doing is abhorrent. Using a case of a known male hacker that uses being a fake transgendered woman as part of their ploy, to entrap men and make their PCs slaves, in this fashion, is disgusting beyond belief. Anyone who has seen the WR post and comments knows this, and holding up a misogynist posing as a transgendered woman, and using the Manning case as protection is sickening. You leading the charge is just as bad. 75% of your edits are to either Wiki drama boards or Talk pages. You are not here to improve this project, you are here to engage in bickering. Nostop bickering. Even if I disagree with the manner that Neotarf is engaging you(and I most certainly do disagree with it), your efforts to subvert the Manning case to fit into your attacks is beyond all humanity. And you still believe that making that comment you made was justified? There is no benefit in allowing you to disrupt the project on your never ending crusade. There is little wonder why editors are leaving this project, if the type of comments and 'cases' you bring to ArbCom are treated with anything except outright rejection. Dave Dial (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't the Manning case all about gender identity? That was the whole controversy in itself. Manning was a woman and her Wikipedia page did not reflect that. Now it does, and appropriately too, and I'm glad that was the outcome. Now we have a few editors claiming that a person who identifies as a woman (me, because I am one) is someone masquerading as a woman to further content disputes. The situation changed--sure, but it's still dealing with gender identity and I've made my whole position abundantly clear. I am a woman. Your latest comment on HIAB's talk page continuously uses the wrong pronouns; I do not appreciate that as well as the baseless accusation that I'm trying to infect other editors of Wikipedia with some malicious virus. Tutelary (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a 0% chance I address you as anything other than 'he or him'. 0% chance. If you wish to take fact to another board and ask for sanctions, I will be happy to provide ArbCom the files and links I have concerning your known duplicity. I respect gender identity too much than to allow you to distort it for your own personal scams, and to further disrupt the project under the guise of your known modus operandi. If others on Wikipedia wish to allow you to continue to disrupt the site, that's their decision. I will never fall for your scams. Dave Dial (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

But the accusation isn't baseless. About the gender identity thing, are you saying that you didn't write "But it’s good for pretending to be a girl, all it takes is, “Hey, wanna see me naked? <3" and you've got another slave."? It's one thing to say that you're a member of an underrepresented group on Wikipedia but you've taken it to extremes. Imagine a scenario where I would claim to be an 80-year-old woman from Angola. I would participate in discussions about older editors, women editors, and editors from African countries and stress my group membership to deliver messages like "You just shrug it off", implying that I consider the challenges that underrepresented groups face on Wikipedia negligible. If I could "shrug it off" other women should be able to do the same. Gender gap, geographical bias, age bias? No big deal. Now imagine if there was very convincing evidence that I'm not an older woman from Angola but a 20-something American man who brags about enslaving computers by pretending to be a girl on hacker sites. Do you see why some editors would be reluctant to let my act as the ultimate underrepresented person continue unchallenged? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

How about "SOB" [19] -- is that okay? NE Ent 23:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

About the gender identity thing, are you saying that you didn't write "But it’s good for pretending to be a girl, all it takes is, “Hey, wanna see me naked? <3" and you've got another slave." I have not, ever in my entire life, when I made my first friend, at my birthday parties, at my first high school dance, not in my life have I ever said anything like that. Is that what qualifies as 'thorough research and evidence' nowadays? Some person has the same username on two forums and all of a sudden, they're 100% the same person? I could just as easily create an account with your name on pornographic websites and post horrible images in an attempt to get your Wiki reputation degraded/you blocked/banned. That's what's scary about this, it will set a very dangerous precedent which will no doubt be exploited by the already rampant sockpuppeteers looking for some cheap laugh. Regarding the diff, you took it out of its context. If you read the actual content, you can see that I'm talking about vandals. When fellow editors, people who've you've edited on the same pages before suddenly say all these horrible things about you, that takes a giant psychological toll. Vandals, not so much. That's where the 'you shrug it off' bit came from. If they get excessive (which they really don't considering they get bored easy), consistently revert with Huggle. When a well established editor is using derogatory language and is blatantly telling you that your identity is fake, that really hits me deep. Which is why I've been discouraged about Wikipedia as of late, because it keeps happening. From somebody so established as Dave Dial and even on Jimbo's talk page where he can see it it continues to happen. I'm surprised the press hasn't taken this as evidence that Wikipedia is transphobic considering that the case has been declined by ArbCom. They're usually overly passionate about trans issues. Though you probably won't accept that I didn't say those things, or do pretty much 99.9% of the stuff that people have said I did. I'm not expecting that. I'm expecting you to think and look at the evidence and think about it all. Tutelary (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The "you just shrug it off" bit came from your reply to an editor who linked to an article about women being harassed on the internet. In answer to that you wrote that you (as a woman, of course) "just shrug it off". You and the hackforums person share more than a username. You share a first and last name, an interest in Hackforums, and some other remarkable things. I still have no idea what any of this has to do with transphobia. Are you saying that you are transgender or transsexual and that I am prejudiced against you? Seriously? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

If you're asking me, I think language like that should be avoided. Not so much because the core meaning is "son of a bitch" which might be construed as an offensive term, but because of the hostile attitude. I do think there is room to relax and chill out and that we are human beings and so we can get irritated and lose our tempers... and then apologize and try to do better. That last part is critical. The thing that I'm finding unacceptable is the argument that we have to put up with persistent repeated abusive behavior as the price to pay for certain people's good contributions. We don't have to launch into a "politically correct witchhunt" to say hey, you know what, we do draw the line and we expect respectful behavior of each other, even with a very real and normal human understanding that Intarweb drahmaz happen.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between a crusade and defending myself against accusations over a closed matter. I'm tired of having to hear about that comment on issues not even related to it. I see that you have conveniently ignored the 90 or so articles I've authored and the new page patrol I primarily do so of course those stats will not reflect those because surprise they are deleted. I report usernames, vandalism etc on people that break our policies. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

To add this is why we are here, I've asked for help and guidance. It has been ignored, I feel that I am bringing up a valid point. I sent this to NYB and no one has responded by email or on the clarification request but if we look at this email it might help understand my motivations. "I'm curious to know how this isn't a useful question. I've been and have continued to be accused of mysogny and things that are demeaning to other editors and it's no where near as insulting as telling someone who is transgender they are only claiming to be a woman. If Tarc is being admonished for offensive behavior for similar comments that seems to be a double-standard. Seriously I mean this legitimately to understand where I am wrong, I'm not trying to hang myself but simply letting people paint an incorrect picture of me makes me feel like I should defend myself because someone else is doing the hanging and in a half-cocked manner. I would appreciate any advice how to extricate myself from this shit, I've disengaged with the others but these accusation about me are extremely personal and in ways that are offensive because my flaws aside I don't discriminate against woman and any of the other groups mentioned. I am only asking here because honestly I really can't deal with the whole choir that clouds what is said and how and could use a calm response." Thats the sad part of people like Dave above who make halfcocked judgements. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Usually, yes, questioning/mocking someone's gender preference should be considered a personal attack and adjudicated accordingly. However in this specific case, the person in question has been shown...albeit with off-wiki evidence that cannot be linked to on-wiki...to be a bit less-than-truthful regarding this area of identity. Also, you tried to get a person sanctioned via sanctions that were not applicable. Just let it go. Tarc (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

There's still a huge disconnect here between the common Wikipedia beliefs that a) it is actionable abuse to suggest that a person using clothing or hormones to appear as the other sex is "pretending", and b) it is perfectly OK and commendable to suggest action against an editor for pretending to be the other sex when editing Wikipedia. I think that we need to strike an average here, with the key thing being, when you go at another editor Tom and Jerry style over a few little personal details of anatomy that you certainly have not seen for yourself, it's at best a waste of time. Wnt (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Wnt, I've not been given my due courtesy when it's come to this matter. Whatever ~~you and~~ other editors seeking to get me site banned on Wikipedia think me as--I really couldn't care less, a pink unicorn, an octopus, a raging misogynist, a l33t hax0r, or anything of the sort I really couldn't care less. You're entitled to whatever thoughts you want. But when it becomes a problem with me, people actively spouting those baseless allegations towards me and continuously using the wrong set of pronouns (to infuriate me because I've plainly said that I am a freakin' woman) is absolutely out of line. There is absolutely no line at all between identities. You identify as a man, I will pronounce you as one. Woman, same thing. Neutral, same thing. Even today, Wnt, if you were to identify with the opposite gender as you are now, I will pronounce you as one. I don't care given a hypothetical vandal claiming to be a woman--I will address them by their identity, their preferred identity. Who are you to even question their identity in the first place? You're going to outright claim you know them better than they do? That they're masquerading and lying to gain an upper hand? That's the real disconnect here, nobody sees that as a problem here. The fact that you are even thinking there is a disconnect is unfortunate and a bit concerning; after all, don't we have guidelines when it comes to BLP and self identification? That their personal identification is final? Why not apply the principle of those guidelines to editors? I'll spearhead such a thing. Tutelary (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Tutelary: I am not disagreeing with that - I think you've gotten my intent backwards, except insomuch that I think our MOS:IDENTITY is presently a bit too extreme in supporting certain doctrines related to transsexuality. I didn't support a ban against you. Wnt (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Struck that bit then. I don't think it's extreme at all, just accommodating to the person and their identity. Tutelary (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with MOS:IDENTITY in general except in this particular situation, where we have a person who has been around the internet claiming things for ulterior motives. Tarc (talk) 19:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Tarc, you are topic banned from transgender related subjects, which this is. This may be a violation of your topic ban to continously comment on this subject. Tutelary (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Unless you rise...or sink, as it were...to the level of your fellow redditor violentacrez and become article-worthy (wouldn't that be a kicker?), you are not a transgender-related "subject", sorry. Tarc (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Violet Blue is another one especially popular with certain Wikipediocracy friendlies. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Tarc: You still have not explained how putting on a female persona online is different from putting on a dress and cleavage enhancers in person. Meanwhile, I would say I can't believe you would gloat about the treatment of "violentacrez", but then again, literally, I do. But we are talking about someone who basically, what??? Oversaw a number of talk forums with an immense amount of "controversial" content, managing, nonetheless, to never be charged with a single crime despite a mob baying for his blood. And for this, he was the object of a McCarthyist crusade to get him fired and harassed, by amateur wannabe censors whose agenda has no end in sight. In other words, cyberbullying, pure and simple. Why people try to ban it in the classroom when they want to see it become the Law of the Land in cases like this is another mystery I can't fathom. And how much less justifiable, then, is your continuing effort to take any small detail about Tutelary you can ferret out and use it for some bogus comparison. I mean, "Tutelary has edited Reddit. Violentacrez has edited Reddit. Therefore ???. Profit!" Unfortunately, the community did not learn what it should have learned from the Fae case: that "opposition research" is not an appropriate basis for criticizing editors. Sufficient unto the website are the evils thereof. Wnt (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Wnt, maybe I'm just simple folk, but I've read this though a few times and between the pontificating and the internet meme name-dropping/mangling, have no idea what point you're trying to make. What we have here is a person who has misrepresented who and what there are in other forums, and is trying to do it again here. That's all. Tarc (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Tarc: To begin with, an editor has no duty to represent him/herself here accurately. We have the duty to be skeptical of editor claims. There is a narrow precedent you cited, that if an editor says he's a doctor or a Ph.D., he's read all the relevant literature, and this is what it says, even if he doesn't have the reference handy, and it turns out he's lying, you have a right to object to that. But note that this is a false claim, essentially, about having a source for your work when you don't, which runs counter to AGF. No such thing is possible with male and female, because both sexes see essentially the same things; nor is it possible with other demographics such as race or religion.

On top of this, we have the narrower issue of transsexuality. We are told to respect an editor who thinks of ~~himself~~ as a woman -- indeed, you are ordered to say herself -- and accept that editor as a woman. Our articles are written retroactively by MOS decree, to the point where, remarkably, the article about Chelsea Manning struggles awkwardly to explain how she, as a young girl, dealt with being seen as feminine and eventually confided that she was gay. Wearing clothing is one aspect of the assertion of the "correct" gender identity. Making Internet posts is another. Who is to say that an editor who posts as a woman is not in the future (indeed, by policy, presently) a transsexual who is auditioning the speech and actions of the new gender? Do we have a crystal ball? So this online "misrepresentation" should, by compatibility with our current policy, not be called misrepresentation at all since possibly it is the assertion of a lifelong alternate gender. This is true whether or not the editor dresses as female, takes female hormones, or indeed, even if the editor still describes herself as "pretending" because she is only beginning to gain awareness of being transsexual.

Now is that goofy thinking? Well, yeah. I don't think there's a man or a woman inside us; I think there's an Atman inside us. So I don't believe in any identity other than the socially constructed identity a person has at the present time, and that identity then I recognize can change from male to female, but is not female from birth; and that identity is made up of numerous habits and behaviors that have to be learned, and which exist only within a cultural context. Many people regarded as masculine today would, by 1900s standards, be seen as highly effeminate, and the opposite is also true. But the conclusion this brings me to is nonetheless that the editor's sex doesn't matter, so it doesn't change my opinion that I don't blame Tutelary for any such postings. Now, if an editor claims to be an authority on eyeliner and doesn't wear eyeliner and writes nonsense in the article, you can complain about that -- but some women don't use it, thank goodness, and unfortunately, some men do, so that's not sex you'd want to look at but experience. I hope this clarifies my position. Wnt (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Wnt, to be honest I really don't care, not even enough to dive in to that TL:DR Wall. A user here has misrepresented who he is on this project, proven by the Off-Wiki-Website-We-Shall-Not-Name, and this misrepresentation caused mass disruption in the Quinn/Gamergate topic area for a time. This user has disengaged from that topic area, so what they do in from this point on in is of no concern to me, unless they choose to stray back in to that topic. I am formally requesting you to stop pinging me any further regarding this thread. Tarc (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Simplicity for the confusion

Groundwork

No actions will be taken to penalize Neotarf (I accept this)
Manning/Sexology cases state [[20]] "The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology for (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Sexology case, not this one."
[[21]] Comment telling a transgender woman that they are claiming to be a woman.
[[22]] references this under defamatory terms "Defamatory: "deceptive," "fooling," "pretending," "posing," "trap," or "masquerading" Gender identity is an integral part of a person's identity. Do not characterize transgender people as "deceptive," as "fooling" or "trapping" others, or as "pretending" to be, "posing" or "masquerading" as a man or a woman. Such descriptions are defamatory and insulting."

So the question is does this only deal with articles or does this also cover transgender editors on the site as well. I'd also like to ask User:DD2K what evidence they have for that Tutelary is not being honest? If not a few things need to happen the statement should be redacted per WP:OUTING or I'm 100 percent wrong and it truly is a non issue. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you let Tutelary fight his own battles? We don't do argument-by-proxy here, and what this really looks like is that since you have a beef with Neotarf over other things, you're looking to get that user into trouble over something unrelated to you. As I noted above, the evidence is off-wiki; it can't be linked to, but I'm sure you know the name of the site where it is. Tarc (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you let Tutelary fight his own battles? The fact that Tarc is able to get away with that comment when I've made it blatantly, boldly, and independently clear that I am a woman is a failure of this site. It is insulting and degrading to continually refer to me as some kind of man pretending to be a woman-No wait, it's actually incomprehensibly offensive. And it's been sanctioned and rubber stamped by numerous other editors here, ArbCom, and at WP:ANI and quite frankly I'm freakin' sick of it. To add, Tarc is indefinitely banned from transgender topics anyways, and might be in violation of their topic ban. Tutelary (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Your tuthfulness on this matter has been called into question, and I haven't seen any administrators, and especially not ArbCom, rubberstamping anything. KonveyorBelt 16:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Tarc, honestly I don't, I don't do anything with wiki off wiki other then bitch when i get stressed to my fiance. If we can't link that evidence it should go. I will be honest that yes this is related to our dispute for sure. There's a reason I quit arguing with you at Arb, you haven't actually got super personal with me, I think you are wrong but overall I think it's a simple fix when Arbcom says it's wrong then that's the way the world spins a different way and we both go our separate ways. I don't think you are going to follow me around and still prattle nonsense about my personal character or things that happened two months ago. That's not what's happening here, other then me alleging it was possible that was the route that partially led to this point I think it's a dead issue. I do think that if Neotarf is actually genuine in offensive atmosphere prevention it is a very offensive comment. If all that is said and done and everyone still thinks I'm wrong quite likely i'm wrong. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket, Tarc's advice is sound. To restate in my words:

Let go of the Tutelary issue, entirely.
Stop interacting with or thinking about User:Neotarf.

Life's too short. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been sent in a different direction. I've seen some things that make me understand the situation a little more clear and although I don't understand all of it honestly i think there's enough doubt to at least understand that portion. User:Neotarf I apologize and to everyone else I apologize for this. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

That's cool, HIAB, try to relax now and have a good weekend. —Neotarf (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

In case anyone missed what that was all about, a couple of weeks ago Tutelary pasted a boilerplate statement titled "respect of my gender" on six different editors' talk pages, claiming the editors had used "male pronouns to describe me" and to "edit your comment to use female pronouns". [23] [24][25][26][27][28] No gendered pronouns were ever discovered, even though several users asked for diffs. The users who did respond mostly told Tutelary not to read things into statements that weren't there. —Neotarf (talk) 04:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, I did use a male pronoun at one point. But let's consider the actual issue here. There is no doubt, bar a billions to one coincidence, that the Tutelary who posted on Hackforums in 2013 is the same one posting here (I'm not going to link to the reams of off-wiki evidence - or indeed the on-wiki evidence of articles they've edited - but there is plenty of it). So, I was merely trying to get a simple answer to the question as to which of these is correct; (a) that Tutelary is, indeed, a woman, and the postings on Hackforums are lies (which no-one would care about on-wiki and the issue would be solved); (b) That Tutelary has changed their gender identity since last year (in which case why not simply say that in the first place and again, no-one would have a problem), or (c) Tutelary is indeed male and is lying here about it, which is a problem due to their editing on gender issues at Zoe Quinn and elsewhere. However when Tutelary denies that the off-wiki postings were made by them, it has to bring anything else they say into doubt. Their excuse above "Some person has the same username on two forums and all of a sudden, they're 100% the same person?". That would be a reasonable point had the off-wiki postings been made after the ones here, but they were made before Tutelary had even made an edit here (and that's not even taking in to account their previous username). That is why people above are unconvinced, and it still really needs an answer apart from "that wasn't me". If that answer is (a) or (b) the problem will go away right now. Black Kite (talk) 12:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

So, my this is my understanding of your statement, Black Kite, is that Tutelary has to out themselves in a satisfactory way for this to stop? --Kyohyi (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No, they simply have to stop evading and tell the truth. Let me know which part of my posting was too difficult to understand on that point. Black Kite (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

So, you're assertion is that the personal information that they have posted is insufficient for you, and that they need to post more/correct personal information? And by personal information, I am going by wikipedia's privacy policy. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Per my response to Tarc above, I don't think this is our business. Even if Tutelary made those statements, there is no reason why they cannot be consistent with her story, and it is not her duty to pander to idle curiosity. Wnt (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It is the very fact that they are inconsistent that is the problem. And as I said, this is not idle curiosity; if you had read the off-wiki evidence you would know exactly why their presence here could be very problematic if they are deceiving us. Black Kite (talk) 08:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, Tutelary has not edited for a couple of days, so it is unsurprising they haven't answered here. However, if they do start to edit without giving a satisfactory answer here, I'll be unimpressed. Though if they've moved away from Gamergate, Quinn and gender related issues now, hopefully it'll be a non-issue. Black Kite (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I looked up 'reddit gamergate' and found Tutelary mentioned in the context of some eloquent letters by Jimbo which he asked be kept in confidence and weren't. My feeling is when the Wikipedia coverage is the biggest part of a story it's not much of a story, and this has become a football in that story. And as from the beginning the story was about people on Reddit cyberbullying Quinn, I'm not inclined to follow that same path here. The ANI against Tutelary has been closed and there's no need to reopen it. Tutelary may or may not be a Good Citizen of the Net but it is clearly beyond at least my competence to figure that out, not to mention my interest. If there is anything in the entire GamerGate saga but pissing about, I have yet to see it. What I do believe is true is that in general the "gamer magazines" are tremendously slanted toward the industry players and read like salesmanship. I don't doubt they get paid, but I'm guessing it's in ad revenue or other payola (might be anything from exclusive access to bribes) rather than nookie. And Wikipedia just liiiiiicks this stuff up, treats them like summa cum reliable-sources, watches as people put together articles about games that are just as glowing and consumer-oriented, even includes huge amounts of Fair Use material to preview gameplay when we can't manage to agree that an FBI top ten wanted poster is fair use once the person is caught. We have company specific Wikiprojects like WP:WikiProject Square Enix that can get a product featured on the main page like clockwork every six months. And we call that Wikipedia's best work! Now compared to that, GamerGate doesn't seem like much of a scandal, and Tutelary doesn't seem like an issue. You want to fix something, pass a rule that Wikipedia can only front page feature articles about non-branded topics, such as first person shooter or women and video games. I know, I know, those articles can't possibly be comprehensive because we can't get all the content ever written about them from a few glowing trade magazine reports... I just don't care.. Wnt (talk) 11:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Wnt wrote: "We have company specific Wikiprojects like WP:WikiProject Square Enix that can get a product featured on the main page like clockwork every six months." Yow! Who knew. I see there's also Category:Video_games_WikiProjects. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC and proposal that newbies not make such silly suggestions on their first day of editing

Walter, I've noticed that your "first edit" was approximately three hours ago, yet you are already writing like an old veteran of Wikipedia. Congrats on your apparently meteoric learning curve. I noticed from your edits that in the space of two or three short hours, you have learned more about the arcane syntax of "Wikipedia editing script" than most of us learn in two or three years! Umm..... are you still wearing your socks? Scott P. (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Support: We're not good at stopping newbies if Walter was able to penetrate our defenses so quickly!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Support... even though it is painfully obvious that although we regular editors do not know his roots, Walter is probably no newbie. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Don't bite the newbies for what the oldies (including previously unregistered AnonIPs) probably are doing. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Praise

Frenzie23 has given you a c ookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Shame on you

In regard to your article about lambinowice prison camp in poland, I cannot believe that you fail to mention the treatment of the innocent german inmates past 1945, who were torture to death there by the thousands. There is much reason to believe that Wikepidia is blind on one eye.

Since this is not the only "incident" in that regard, I see a policy there. Shame on you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.185.35.105 (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Anyone can edit Wikipedia; if you think the article is wrong you should correct the mistake, taking into account the rules for verifibility. What you edit in the article must be consistent with what reliable sources say. Count Iblis (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, while the article on Łambinowice is quite short for such a significant site, we do indeed mention the treatment of German inmates past 1945, including the sentence "Out of 8000 internees, it is estimated that between 1000 and 1,500 German civilians died in the camp, mostly by typhus and maltreatment from camp officials". Indeed, the section on the camp under Polish administration is roughly as as long as the ones on Nazi and Imperial German administration, respectively. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT and don't bitch about it. On Wikipedia, if you see an error or mistake, use the Edit button and fix it. The Edit button's right there, I don't see why people just think it's only for adding obscenities to the article. It's not! The Edit button is how the article exists in the first place. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 02:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Advertisement on Wikipedia

Hey Jimbo, I'm here to recommend an ad style. We need money to keep up the good work. Donations may not hold it still. We can't risk Wikipedia. So, instead of ad spots and annoying popups, we can take sponsors for external links. There are aready thousands of ad style links. Why not add one to links and support the encyclopedia. For example, game articles, they'd be an opportunity. Links like a Steam link will be enlightening too. You can count all commercial and information providing sites. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Advertising. In short, no. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

WMF needs less money, not more. The size of the bureaucracy is expanding like a cancer and with it its sense of decision-making entitlement and hubris. Carrite (talk) 18:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

With 10 months of operating reserves (based on $42m reserves and $49m annual expenditure), I question whether they need any money at the moment. BethNaught (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with User:Carrite and User:BethNaught. If the WMF doesn't have enough money to pay its expenses without advertising, then it can lay off staff, some of whom are looking for problems to solve that don't need solving. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The 2014–15 Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan suggests that operation costs about $8M/yr [29] so there is about 5 years operation in reserve. Deltahedron (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

This question appears to be sincere, but the effect is that of trolling for an emotional response. Jehochman ^Talk 18:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow, when did the Republican Party join Wikipedia? Take out the word WMF and replace it with "Federal govt" and you've got a Republican sound bite up above, word for word. Can we do without the bashing of people who are doing a job and trying to make a living?Camelbinky (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC).

Did it not occur to you that you are bashing Republicans in your complaint about bashing? (irony) Nyth83 (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You can contact me on my talk page to let me know how that was bashing Republicans. Are you seriously saying that I'm incorrect in saying that it was a word-for-word Republican sound bite if the word WMF was changed? If you believe that observation is in some way an insult, then I'd like to point out the Republican Party itself would not agree with you.Camelbinky (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

For the record, were I American, I would vote Democrat. BethNaught (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Then it is a good thing that you are not an American. Typical liberal foreigners. (smile) Nyth83 (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I love how people who are not Republican know with total certainly what they think.Thelmadatter (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Republicans have proven that they love to spend other peoples money as much as anybody. That is why I lean more towards the Tea Party. Nyth83 (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Eric and Sitush

I know both at times can become a little heated, but I don't know what sort of crackdown you've launched but it's causing even more trouble than before. Whatever you've said has provoked the trolls into stalking them, rubbing their hands with glee whenever they spot even the slightest thing uncivil. This trend in lynching them has emerged and barely a day goes by I don't see a fresh new comment from one of the gang members. It's become a joke and it's highly disruptive, more disruptive than anything either of them could say. Is this really the sort of encyclopedia you want where administrators go about patting each other on the back for playing civility policemen? To me it's far more toxic the way these editors are hounded. And it's not just these two, it's other editors who I respect are also having to deal with the same sort of thing. It's counterproductive to building an encyclopedia and creates far more of a backlash and time wasting than it would if it was simply ignored. Does the need to be perfect people really take precedent over building an encyclopedia? I can understand why you find them problematic, but I don't understand why you think this sort of response is somehow acceptable too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

What's counterproductive to building an encyclopaedia is being uncivil in the first place. At any rate, ArbCom now looks likely to accept the GGTF case, which should hopefully put the repeated ANI threads to bed for a while. BethNaught (talk) 10:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

There are a wide range of interpretations defining "uncivil" on wikipedia. I see it used to describes comments not even remotely close to being a personal attack. If content contributors saying something uncivil is indeed counterproductive to building an encyclopedia, is it not worse the fuss which results after it and the civility police patting each other on backs and encouraging an environment of bullying?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

[Insert to User:BethNaught: Just noticed 5 now accept it (Arbitrators at Arbcom). However, except for an occasional allusion to the past, the problems seem to be over at GGTF. (Two problems with editors Wikihounding me for a year ended up with their following me to and causing problems at GGTF, but that's been solved by ANIs placed by others.) So I don't know why ArbCom would come in at the last minute for a dramafest! ~~(I've run out of 500 words at the request, so am reluctant to say that there now.)~~ Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"The problems seem to be over." You're assuming the "problems" to be reviewed by any ArbCom case are only the one's you have complained of. Several of the arbitrators have indicated that any case wouldn't be limited in that way. For example, one of the arbitrators who voted to accept today previously said "Whilst I'm very happy that the Gender Gap Task Force is trying to increase the number of women on Wikipedia, I'm not happy with the fact that a subset of that task force is complaining about the criticism that they are receiving." DeCausa (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

[Insert: I think the proof is in the numbers of badgering questions over and over again vs. the number of complaints about them. Are you saying the problem is that editors did not go to ANI much sooner instead of trying to make the point on the GGTF talk page? (Which is the first thing recommended in WP:Dispute resolution.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

No, of course not. I'm quite surprised to have to spell it out. Some of the arbitrators have signalled that the behaviour of those complaining was also poor and will also be subject to scrutiny e.g. Salvio said: "In this case, in my opinion, both sides have conducted themselves in a way that bears review, so I vote to accept" DeCausa (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"So I don't know why ArbCom would come in at the last minute for a dramafest!" — Now, now, you simply must remember masterful way they turned what promised to be three days of intense debate into a six week, ummmm, clusterhug with an 11th Hour intervention in the Private Manning case... But hey, drama is what it has been all about for the last couple months at GGTF, so here comes Act 3. Carrite (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I have little experience with Sitush myself, but the method of communication as often wielded by Eric (and increasingly wielded and enabled by other editors, including more and more sysops over the past 3 years or so) are a significant part of the reason why I gave up my bits. It seems that a few people have gotten an effective 'carte blanche' on our pillar of "Editors should treat each other with respect and civility". Eric specifically says that he "treats those who deserve respect with respect". But the pillars are not about the judgement of one person, they should reflect the goals and boundaries we set as a community. If we as a community think that he has a pattern of being disrespectful and uncivil (something stated in the discussion all the time even by his supporters), then he is not acting in the spirit of the pillar. They are pillars, not scales to be tirelesly balanced out with excuses and 'good content'. If we are not dealing with that pillar, then it can only mean that either the pillar is useless and should be torn down, or that we need to do more to restore that pillar. It seems that a lot in the community have chosen to either side with, to stop caring and ignore or to leave. So probably the community should tear down that pillar in that case... I think that would be a terrible idea, but it does seem to be the direction that the community (or what remains of it) is adopting. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

What I'm saying though is if it's not acceptable for Eric to be disrespectful and uncivil to certain editors, why is it OK for administrators to deal with the perceived problem in an environment which encourages bullying and provoking. Doesn't the constant lynching and feeding him provocative remarks also pose a threat to that pillar?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I want to endorse Dr. Blofeld's comments. Your answer to the problems that dog Wikipedia have been long awaited. But I have been dismayed more than I can say by your recent attacks on Eric and Sitush. Is it really your assessment that the core problems are due to the behaviour of some of the most able, productive, long term and committed content editors, and that these editors need to be banned? Because it seems to me you are opening the door to a vigilante culture, where it is okay to use politically correctness as a weapon to bait and goad able content builders until they respond immoderately. What I definitely don't see are attempts to create a climate which facilitates content building, and allows content builders to work with some dignity in a non-threatening environment. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Is this in regards to something specific Jimbo has done or said recently? If so, then good; the project needs to stop giving content creators a free pass to behave as badly as they want to, to anyone at any time. Tarc (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about Tarc? Since when have content creators had "a free pass to behave as badly as they want to, to anyone at any time"? That's rubbish. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't play ignorant; Corbett/Malleus has a block log a mile long because few have the fortitude to make a block stick. Sitush makes a threat many construe to be a threat of violence, gets blocked, then unblocked after a day with no explanation...that didn't come til later. It took several years to finally get rid of Betacommand, and that only came about because his ardent supporters started to fade. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Then say what you mean. That's not what you said. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Um, yes, it is exactly what I said; these editors are regarded as prolific content creators; when they are uncivil, even grossly so, to others, it is allowed to slide. Tarc (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Tarc, even if being a content contributor doesn't mean anybody can behave how they like, you're missing the point. There is a whole subcommunity of admins on wikipedia who exist to feed provocative comments to get a reaction and then relish brandishing the civility stick and imposing blocks and preachy comments and seeing the drama escalate. I'm witnessed it so many times. It's intentional, these people know it's going to blow up into something. That sort of environment is more toxic to me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but no; adults are responsible for their own actions. "Billy teased me so I hit him back!" stops being a viable excuse for bad behavior right around puberty. Tarc (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Any fan of NFL football or NHL hockey knows that the key to keeping order in the game is to punish the instigators, not those who react and "take the bait." Carrite (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Probably not the best of times to be holding up the NFL as a paragon of virtue, bro. Tarc (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, things tend to calm down more often in hockey when the referee sends both to the box. Punish the retaliator exclusively, and you only encourage instigation. Punish the instigator exclusively and you encourage badgering. Punish nobody effectively and you end up with Wikipedia. Reso lute 16:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Four minutes for the instigator, two for the retaliator... Carrite (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It was what he said at WikiMania. The problem has escalated since then, and the constant harassment on talk pages has got worse as has the backlash to them. This is not promoting a civil website. I'm not criticising Jimbo for wanting a website where everybody is completely nice to each other and things run without conflict, but I am highly critical if he thinks the lynching and gang warfare in response to perceived actions of "incivility" is somehow acceptable and an appropriate way to deal with it and drive them out. Jimbo might not like a lot of people who he considers toxic to the website, but it's also setting a bad example in encouraging this sort of ham-fisted behaviour from certain admins or people who clearly enjoy the attention beating the civility stick gets and the brownie points it earns from others and Jimbo. Doesn't he think that the taunting and the backlash which inevitably results also contributes to a toxic community? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Several things happened at once: Gender gap task force got going again; someone asked about a possible "Civility board" and Eric Corbett’s 7/24/14 comment “the easiest way to avoid being called a c*nt is not to act like one.”[30] which was mentioned in an ANIs and elsewheres; civility also was discussed on this talk page; Eric[31] and others supportive of such language then joined the Gender Gap project and were disruptive; Wales made his Wikimania statement. No one person is responsible, though if someone is going to act uncivil, some may call them uncivil. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Blofeld....there are hundreds of "content creators" such as yourself that don't have anyone ganging up on them. Frankly, until you've had the old encyclopedia dramatica and GNAA gang up on you like I did, you haven't seen a real gang up.--MONGO 13:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It's still no excuse to target any editor and lynch him. uncivil or not. And it is real ganging up, and it creates more bitterness and problems.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is the right place to say what I want to say Sitush is a great contributor, agreed. Sitush not editing is a loss for the community, agreed. But can we just ignore anything wrong that they do just because they are good contributors? Well Sitush himself used to say that he had received death threats, I believe that those threats were taken seriously. I wonder what happened to those editors who had threatened Sitush, were they shown the same kind of leniency that we are trying to show to Sitush? What are the reasons to believe that the threats issued to Sitush are any different from threats issued by Sitush? To be honest I feel that this issue has been blown out of proportion. Sitush did something wrong, he was punished. End of the story. I also hope that Sitush gets back very soon. -sarvajna (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that he issued threats?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you denying that the events detailed in User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 173#On-WIki threats of violence happened? Tarc (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

How would you know the content of the alleged threats, Tarc, you are not an administrator (saints be praised)? It has all been scrubbed with revision-deletion. So please spare us all your faux sanctimonious and inflammatory comments. Carrite (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The comments are posted in the ANI discussion that is now closed. -sarvajna (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Carrite, don't be obtuse, the comments in question were paraphrased by editors in the ANI discussion several days ago. Tarc (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

An out-of-context paraphrase is not the same as reading direct quotations in context and you know it — or should. Carrite (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Things seem to have come a ~~full circle~~ (wrong idiom, my mistake). 122.177.57.41 (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know all that happened Tarc, I didn't see a diff on Sitush's talk page explaining the "indefinite block" but I do know that history repeated itself, again this time with him, and that obviously the block was not clear cut because it was removed by a very respected admin shortly afterwards. Such things make a mockery of the system we have on here and reveal that it is ineffective in dealing with content contributors who occasionally become involved in heated arguments and say something which others consider uncivil. Obviously numerous admins disagree with Jimbo's idea of super strict civility enforcement as most of Eric's blocks ended up being swiftly removed by another, in this instance it was Sitush. All I know is that I'm tired of seeing the same thing all of the time and the civility policing actually causing more trouble and bitterness with the backlash which results than what was said initially. Clearly something needs to change. For all the uncivil acts they've apparently committed, the system of dealing with civility has shown itself to be grossly inadequate every time. And somebody has to be honest and acknowledge that the way it is dealt with creates more bitterness in the long term than it does in solving civility or controlling it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

As someone who generally stays out of these things, I have a question: Is it really too much to ask that an editor (regardless of the number of edits or contributions to the project) not call another editor names? Put aside, for the moment, the issue of disrupting a Wikiproject, which requires a somewhat subjective judgment; or the issue of what language is appropriate to use in criticising the 'edits' of another editor (as opposed to calling the editor him/herself a name); or the question of whether there is ever a valid reason to tell another editor to "f*** off"; or the issue of whether telling someone that if you were in their presence, they would be looking down the barrel of serious weaponry, is a threat. I have opinions on those subjects, but just put them aside and explain to me why we tolerate name-calling. I don't see any reason why an editor should be allowed to call another editor an idiot, or a moron, or a piece of s***, or any one of a number of body parts, or any other kind of name, regardless of the circumstances. ("POV warrior" or "nationalist editor" or the like is a different discussion, because those are really shorthand ways of expressing an opinion about someone's 'edits' and to question why they should be editing in a particular area of the project, or at all.) For now what I'm saying is, just don't call people a body part, or some other kind of name. If you can't comply with that simple request, go somewhere else on the Internet where people like to be called names, or where nobody cares. Forget about the past. Starting... now. What's wrong with that? Neutron (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not defending that, at times when an editor acts insufferably it is easy to do so, but if it wasn't calling somebody a name they'd find another way to brandish the civility stick. If the website truly can't tolerate somebody telling somebody to eff off, then there needs to be some official thing in place which punishes it evenly. I've seen administrators using such language at editors and nobody blinking an eye.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Many editors would have absolutely no problem with Wikipedia:Civility if it was applied consistently. That is impossible as long as individual administrators can decide on how severe an editor's violation of WP:CIV was or for how long an editor should be blocked for violating the policy. 122.177.57.41 (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, it is likely that most people get by on the Pedia without often/ever having to even discuss civility, so it's not like it's actually that hard. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

If that was true, why is it barely a day ever goes by that somebody who I know is warned about civility or blocked? WP:Civility has become the single biggest problem on the website, and not just offending it. Everywhere I look very experienced editors are being templated for personal attacks over the most trivial of comments. It's become a site obsession to berate somebody with NPA or Be Civil. Might there actually be some correlation between those who really care about content and feel passionate/protective of it and the tendency to violate WP:Civility? It seems a strange cooincidence that many of the great content producers I know are often involved in "uncivil" disputes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who you hang out with but it seems telling that you don't say that you are warned every day. And so what. If it's a dumb warning ignore it.Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not warned every day, although I'll often have a "be civil" remark from somebody turning up on my talk page and it's usually related to their inappropriate nomming of articles for deletion because they can't accept that they made a mistake. I see it every day on the user tlak page or article talk page of somebody or other I know. A lot of disputes come about from lesser prolific editors picking holes in work and the contributors feeling defensive or naturally have a better understanding of what content it should contain. If such editors were not here to defend certain material and in doing so getting into a heated argument, wouldn't content be worse off if every experienced editor gave into people who have less experience and knowledge in editing? I'm not excusing genuine personal attacks or threats of violence etc, but I am saying that it's inevitable at times that editors who truly feel strongly about building content are going to encounter situations where they become inflamed with another editor in protecting it. I see such immense trolling for weeks sometimes over non issues to the point that any normal person would have long walked away from it. It's hardly surprising that sometimes people are "uncivil".♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, there are several obvious realities any editor must know: 1) there are dumb people on the internet; 2) sometimes you have to deal with dumb people on the internet; 3) Wikipedia has adopted a civility policy -- that boils down to discuss ideas not specific people; 4) So, if one can't live with the first three points, Wikipedia will often be an unhappy place for that editor. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:Civility doesn't accommodate for the "sometimes you have to deal with dumb people on the internet;" part though does it? If it did, Eric wouldn't have been blocked or scolded much.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

That's because it's a dumb idea for WIkipedia to say all dumb people are banned from the internet -- moreover, there are places that are not openly editable by anyone, it's just that Wikipedia is not one of them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Most of the problems come about from editors who certain people consider ignorant and are liberal in telling them so, the civil stick is brandished, they're blocked, unblocked, pressure gains for it to be lifted and it usually is. All unnecessary drama. You could argue don't, call anybody a name and it won't happen, but I honestly believe that most violations of Wp:Civil do come about from genuine ignorance by somebody over something.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, and whether it's ignorance of not knowing how to just deal with the dumb in a civil manner, or not -- there comes a time when one has to say to themselves, either I can do that, or I cannot. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

A Few Thoughts

It occurs to me that the increased number of templates about incivility in general and the increased number of complaints about civility by particular editors, said by some to be hounding, may reflect all of the deeply divided mood of the community about civility in general, the frustration by some editors who perceive that there is very little enforcement of civility, and the perception that certain editors are exempt from civility. I have recently offered a few thoughts as to what the owner of this talk page and the WMF can do about this situation. (The owner of this talk page recognizes that the amount of WMF civility police, for instance, would be a bad idea.) I have in particular proposed that the WMF conduct a well-structured statistical survey of both existing editors and former editors to determine, among other things, whether the larger community favors stricter civility enforcement than currently takes place at the noticeboards, or whether concern with civility should be relaxed and restated. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I would add that the mood at the noticeboards, which has long been difficult, has been particularly ugly recently. On the one hand, in the short run, we should all try to keep our calm and avoid making a difficult situation worse. On the other hand, a survey of the attitudes of editors would help to determine what can be done in the medium run and the long run. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Some good points Robert. I'm not saying it is fine to call people names, but I do see a lot of abuse of WP:Civil and WP:NPA. I often see veterans (I don't mean Eric or Sitush) templated for comments which are very minor in tone which reinforces my opinion that it's become an obsession on the website. A lot of editors in fact seem to exist purely to to say "be civil". The dominant issue for me is unevenness in standard of enforcement and the fact that admins have the power to make an instant block and override each other and create rifts. Some of the civility police behave in way which seem grossly uncivil yet its tolerated, even encouraged by certain others. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Some examples (of abuse of WP:NPA, say) would be good. What I see, much more, is editors like Eric behaving with absolutely ludicrous levels of hostility towards other editors, leaving a trail of destruction in their path, and then an endless series of apologia due to their allegedly great content contributions (taking no account of the content contributions that they drive away with their outrageous behavior directly PLUS their overall influence on the tone and manner of the community as a whole, as people see that even the worst possible behavior is something that some people get away with repeatedly. Eric, and some like him, should have been permanently banned from Wikipedia a long time ago because the total cost to the volunteer community is tremendous. I see no evidence that anyone is stalking or hounding them at all. People have legitimate grievances and we lose good community members because of them. It's time to step up and say that we aren't talking about minor infractions or "political correctness" but about the need to get rid of people who violate our standards and do damage to the encyclopedia because of it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"taking no account of the content contributions that they drive away with their outrageous behavior" - [citation needed], "the total cost to the volunteer community is tremendous" - [citation needed] Parrot of Doom 11:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You really think that a "permanent ban from Wikipedia" solves everything? Personally, I think it just makes matters worse. - 50.144.2.136 (talk) 12:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Too often, Eric's army of sycophants dismiss your thoughts about the editors with cries of "prove it", knowing it's the Wikipedia equivalent of proving a negative. The administrative corps lined up behind him in vigorous defense refuse to recognize they fail the community as a whole when they overturn blocks with cries of, "he contributes so much content!" Fine. Then we might as well all decamp and leave the whole place to him for all they care about the rest of us, who are forced to endure his incivility, the other uncivil editors he emboldens, and the drama that follows in its wake.

It doesn't take a statistician to see the increasingly stronger correlation between the decline of civility on Wikipedia and the growing loss of editors, particularly women editors. I can offer up my own situation as evidence. I have expertise in two areas where I don't edit. The first is professional: in that case, I simply don't need the increase in blood pressure that comes from trying to deal with amateurs who know just enough to be dangerous, but who insist on editing in the area where I have expertise leaving a trail of mis- and half-information, coupled with the hybridizing of the content to fit American and British taxonomy, terminology and practice. Ugh! That's a lost cause. The second, which is germane to this discussion, is a personal area of interest in which I have expertise, but do not edit. Why? Because it would throw me into Eric Corbett's path. And I refuse to be there and be subjected to his dismissive attitudes, his narcissism, his misogyny, and his ridicule, not to mention his foul turn of phrase. Instead, I stay in a relatively mundane corner of the Wikipedia jousting with fanboys and fangirls rather than adding anything substantive to stay out his way, and the way of others like him. And yet he teflon's along, Wikipedia's version of John Gotti. Who needs it? I sure don't. --Drmargi (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Is the irony lost on you that a person decrying lack of civility refers to a whole group of editors as "Eric's army of sycophants"? LHM^{ask me a question} 16:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

There are many problems here, first and foremost the perception of unequal treatment. What would happen to an editor with say 5-6 months experience here who said things like "He knows that I think he's a piece of shit" or "Fuck off , you're not welcome here" ? Tarc (talk 18:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. But I have a personal recommendation to you (and don't take it hard, we all stumble sometimes): if you want to help with the campaign to make a kinder environment on Wikipedia, try to refrain from comments like the one you made up above on this page. Saying things like "Where do you work, Burger King?" are just not very helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Well said, Tarc! This is one of the most fundamental problems. --Drmargi (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales Without myself making a comment as to if I agree or disagree with your assessment, if you think so strongly about it, why have you not taken personal action? You retain the power to ban do you not? Have you taken a general position refraining from such action? If you have done so, it may be wise to say under what conditions you will or will not intervene. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I do retain that power, but I do not think it is the most effective way for me to effect change in this situation. (Particularly since Eric has repeatedly insulted me personally on my talk page, there would be a view that I'm just pursuing a personal vendetta.) I think it better to effect change on principle - what kind of community do we want to be? I think we should have significantly less drama about these kinds of civility bans, and the best way to do that is to actually ban them rather than having endless drama about how awful they are.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that many of the points you reiterate above are highly debatable and over-simplistic, and that you have been badly advised by people who are not aware of the full picture. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Yea, sorry about the BK thing. Curano was being so dismissive and full of contempt towards the user in question that it just kinda hit a nerve. Tarc (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Or alternatively, we could simply just get rid of the people that treat a so-called encyclopedia as a social networking service to push their own agendas, and in the process provoke excellent content builders such as Sitush and Eric to lash out against them because they are degrading the project. But of course, that wouldn't fit in with the "new and improved" Wikipedia where any idiot with the basic ability to manipulate a keyboard can whine that people are being nasty to them, would it? In the end, do we want an actual encyclopedia or do we want a nice pretty website where anyone can inflate their ego? When I joined, I thought the answer was the former, but now it appears that it's the latter, and you are enabling them. Black Kite (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Stumbled across this discussion at a talkpage I watch. I would like to associate myself entirely with every word BK typed here. At some point, the content contributor vs Wikipedia-as-MMORPG balance needs to swing back in favor of the content contributors. LHM^{ask me a question} 14:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hear hear! Far too many people spend huge amounts of time bickering and politicking in project space. Just imagine what could be achieved if we closed down the drama boards (including this talk page) and everyone put that effort into writing articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

There are fallacies, first, the implication that Eric gruffiness on occasion (99% justified, a good ratio) is the incivility that needs to be targeted, when it is in fact dwarfed by hundreds of different forms of incivility rampant, and often by admins who are power-crazed and irresponsible since difficult to de-sysop. The second fallacy is that if one is going to impose zero-tolerance re incivility, then ban those admins as well, and all other editors guilty of incivilities not so easily identifiable (beyond the easiliy identifiable incivilities: "bad words" and name-calling), and many times worse than gruffiness. (The only explanation for the selectivity for putting a target on Eric's back, is personal vendetta and dislike; or, political pressures [from one or more entities] beyond reg editor and admin experiences on WP.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a different process to deal with civility issues. A long time ago I suggested that we could deal with people who have problems with being civil by making it compulsory for them to have a username that reflects their problem. I guess this would work better with icons that would be displayed; e.g. if someone has been judged to be uncivil then that editor must use an icon displaying a pit bull, and the more uncivil that person is judged to be, the more aggressive that pit bull icon will look. After a set time period of good behavior that editor can ask to have this icon removed, or replaced by a less aggressive one.

The welcome message to new Wikipedians should contain information about these icons. If they know about this from the start that will take away most of the problems. It's similar to how real world interactions work where you have plenty of visual signals. You can see that someone is a drunk person on the street or some gang member. And obviously, you'll handle an aggressive pit bull differently than a poodle. Because a system like this allows uncivil people to continue editing, a community debate about imposing an incivility icon is less likely to degenerate into a big fight. Count Iblis (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

That is very interesting idea! --Epipelagic (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

That would be rather childish and kindergarten like though wouldn't it? In the real world you don't get punishments for swearing at people in disputes so it does seem questionable on wikipedia. Your boss might fire you though if you say something to him/her.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not necessarily "punishment", some people here will admit that they can sometimes be uncivil and they usually don't see that as a big deal. Then this is just about making them owning up to that in a transparent way (newcomers who are not familar with such editors can then deal with these editors better). Count Iblis (talk) 17:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree, an outside-the-box idea w/ merit. (But how would you discourage users from "earning" the most-aggressive pit bull icon as a "badge of honor"!? [Or maybe just let them!?]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Not all people are equal. Tolerance goes a long way in dealing with swearing. If I meet someone who lived on a housing estate in central Manchester I would not be surprised if they sworn every second sentence. That's just the local vernacular. Sometimes communications is a struggle in text words via the internet but a dose of tolerance can go a long way. For those that are offended please watch this. That's not to say uncivil behaviour isn't a problem on Wikipedia, because it is, but swearing is not a problem, although intolerance to swearing maybe. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 20:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Something needs to change with the way civility is enforced. There's way too many double standards and disagreements in what constitutes a personal attack and then an argument on content contributors vs civility. And the system where an admin can block and another can unblock shortly afterwards is quite frankly an embarrassment to the site. Often the unblock is the right solution, but by then it's too late, the drama and bitterness has broken out. Me personally I think the best solution would be to simply ignore it or have some editors who operate on here simply removing the more sweary personal attacks. That doesn't of course account for those who may be genuinely offended by something said and actually leave because of it. If not, then something more extreme is needed which completely does not tolerate anything whatsoever and overrules admins and prevents people from debating blocks or bans. It would seem pretty ludicrous to me to ban a veteran editor for instance for simply calling somebody a sweary name, and we'd lose most of our editors that way, but you'd have a stronger civility enforcement with severe consequences. It depends on how much you rate civility among editors than building the encyclopedia itself. A severe way to deal with it might be something like a 3 strikes and out scheme every year. Every year an editor is given three "lives" so to speak and one is taken away after something serious has been said in an attack and once all out the editor is banned for the remainder of the year which cannot be questioned. Whatever the case, IMO the power in enforcing civility needs to be taken away from administrators, at least in dealing with experienced editors over relatively minor incidents of "uncivility". Admins are a large part of the problem with causing unnecessary drama.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

That would be too crude, prone to a bout of Christmastide truthtelling, but perhaps a system of demerit points would have advantages. I'm not really thinking of the system for driving that our article is about, but the older use of it in the educational system, though I've never actually seen it used (not sure why). The interesting aspect of such a numeric system is that it might invite the possibility that editors can work off demerits by useful editing. With so many admins acting as if 100,000 good edits can't make up for the one time that you cite a reliable source somebody doesn't want to have talked about, it would be veritably revolutionary to suggest that our infractions could be quantified and countered by a finite amount of useful work. Wnt (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It depends how much you rate civility. At the end of a day we're an encyclopedia, so we should be trying to retain as many editors as possible and worry less about behaviour. Readers mostly aren't aware of what goes on behind the scenes. But the way it is dealt with is clearly very poor and creates more problems than anybody can say in the first place.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"It depends on how much you rate civility among editors than building the encyclopedia itself." — This is exactly right and the central cause of the hubbub. We do (and should) put up with more antics from established, proven volunteer contributors than we do from drive-by IPs or new sock accounts of provocateurs. At some point, the cumulative antics offset the positive contributions and the bad actor is shown the door as a "net negative to the project." The problem lies in the fact that this is a slow process and there are some who are on a fast track to use civility rules to annihilate their enemies, real and imagined. These provocateurs are every bit as disruptive, if not moreso, than the handful of foul-mouthed and periodically ill-tempered yobs that go off every now and again. It all comes down to one's view of how WP content is generated: whether by a comparatively small handful of driven volunteers or through the mass contributions of tens of thousands through the magic of "crowdsourcing." I'd argue that in the case of the fairly well developed, heavily footnoted WP of 2014, it is the former and will quote Wehwalt on the matter: "We are here to build an encyclopedia, not sing Kumbaya, and this is a shop floor." — Carrite (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem being that 'something serious' interpretation - it will always be argued about. I'd prefer to see a mandatory brief 'cool down' ban (maybe 3 hours) for any one who directs incivility at the editor rather than the article, Getting sweary shouldn't be the issue - 'That's a c*nt of an article to improve' is different to 'You're a c*nt'. Instead of being debated to death at ANI these blocks should be instant and irreversible by any other admin. Its three hours... if anyone can't wear that (including at times when, if it had gone to ANI, they might not have received anything) then it probably is better that they go. Short, sharp, no appeal, no other admin changing it - lots of us will get slapped on the wrist and we'll all learn to be more careful. Those who don't like it will go. Those who collect substantial blocks won't need diffs on their behavior when it comes to a longer block, or ban, at ANI as the block list will tell the tale. It'd be chaos for a while but it would settle down and remove the trolls and attack dogs as well as reminding everyone to take a bit more time. AnonNep (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld is correct, and part of the larger picture that has lead to problems is to do with the way civility is enforced. At present we have well over one thousand admins, most of them legacy admins who were appointed for life, way back when you had to do little more than ask in order to be an admin. There are no missions statements, nor is there the equivalent of a constitution. As a result there is no real direction, and admins just make up their own ideas about what they are here for. With such diverse and often woefully underqualified admins, it is no surprise civility blocks often blow up and are overturned. It is, for example, not uncommon for a loose cannon legacy admin who has never contributed significant content, to come out of semi-retirement and block a high profile content builder just because he can. Anomalies like this will continue until the current system for disciplining content builders is reformed. The ability to block experienced editors should never be part of the tool set for ordinary admins. Instead, able content builders should only be judged by their peers. A special disciplinary and resolution board should be set up, with members selected for their knowlege of the pressure content builders come under as well as their skills in conflict resolution. Then maybe we can start developing pride in the Wikipedia goverance of civility and related issues, instead of what we have today.--Epipelagic (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed completely. First step Jimbo, and a major one, ban civility bans and the way they can be overturned by anybody. I think you've personally seen enough evidence of them creating unnecessary drama and complaints to ban them instantly. As Epi says, you really do need to distinguish between core editors and others. Given the time and content produced, the more you contribute, especially to core articles up to GA and FA status, the more likelihood heated debates are going to break out. So I think you do need to account for that, but I think any decision to impose civility blocks or bans on well established editors is something which needs to be decided by a special disciplinary and resolution board who have the power to make decisions which cannot be contested by anybody. And as Epi says, at least with some people within it who have much experience working under pressure. Then some more official guidelines in terms of sweary personal attacks and what is generally considered to be offensive or whatever need to be laid down if you're really going to enforce them evenly. And that goes for administrators too. In practice, editors really should be able to say what they want, and it does seem like a school having to have rules of civility, but I can at least see why some sort of control is needed within reason. The frequency of the civility warnings and provocative comments I see on here at the moment is one of the biggest problems in causing disruption and further ill feeling. It needs to be stopped.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

My goodness, what horrible ideas. Epipelagic is going more of a Star Chamber direction of select committees and members investigating each other, whole Blofeld takes the Animal Farm route, suggesting that a class of editors should be privileged above another and subject to separate rules. Tarc (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has already taken the Animal Farm route. It just has a different set of privileged users. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Any of those ideas would be far superior Tarc to your 1880s wild western approach to dealing with incivility.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I...have no idea what that refers to. I'd have to hunt around for the link, but I believe the last time civility changes came up on Jimbo's page, my suggestion was actually quite the opposite of yours. I'd like to see a civility block put on a similar standing as an Arbcom block, in that it could not be removed by another admin on his/her own. Tarc (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

C'mon Tarc, the present set up is exactly how you like it. It maximises the drama mongering. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Er, if I liked it, I wouldn't be arguing against it. Tarc (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but after your behavior in the Manning Case (both on and off wiki), I have a hard time taking at face value the ostensibly principle-driven arguments you make. Carrite (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have in mind a way of getting more drama from it? --Epipelagic (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Ignoring Carrite's trolling and addressing a real comment...do you think it would create more drama if civility blocks were made harder to undo? The blocked party will certainly be out of commission for awhile, and thus making no waves outside of his/her own talk page. Their friends...which is really a part of the current problem, in that AN/I, RfCU and related places become more about how many supporters one cane line up...will certainly squawk, but that's nothing new. You'd have to measure the drama of such a person's continued, unfettered presence in the project vs. the drama that'd surround a hard-to-undo block. Tarc (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. If civility blocks such as the example I gave above are allowed to stand there will be a lot more drama. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

May I ask you Jimbo to seriously reflect on these thoughts by a serious but savaged content builder. I appreciate it's not easy if you've never been there. But you need to develop some empathy with the serious content builders, or the heart is going to be ripped out of this project. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether an editor deserves a block/ban or not. It doesn't matter if he/she is a major content contributor or not. It doesn't matter if she/he is a drama seeker or not. What DOES MATTER, is if an editor has a strong support/fan base or not. No matter what the situation, if he/she has a strong support/fan base? she/he will likely not serve an entire block or even get banned. PS: This goes for any editor. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"fan base" becomes much less relevant once it gets to arbitration. It becomes about precedents for conduct sanctions in previous cases...and also dependent the degree with which arbs investigate the evidence. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom most likely won't take a case, if there's no consensus among the participating editors, for them to accept it. Such a consensus won't come, if an editor's strong base opposes. If such an editor were to get banned? there'd possibly be a huge push to 'change' Arbcom. There would indeed be a big commotion. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I added a couple of suggestions in previous discussions on this issue and managed to get no replies whatsoever! I'll try copying them here to see if I fare a little better. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment 1 - the BBC

The BBC is paid for by the (compulsory) licence fee and its programmes have message boards. That includes, 10 national TV stations (including BBC News 24 and BBC Parliament), 10 national radio stations, 40+ regional radio stations, BBC Worldwide etc. They employ professional moderators and they have levels of moderation and - deep breaths everyone, I'm going to put it out there - pre-moderation (a delay between posting and the message appearing while it is moderated). There are levels to moderation and areas where moderation is more concentrated, a message board for a gardening programme would receive little attention, BBC news which will have threads about the current conflict between Israel and Palestine would receive considerably more attention. Individual accounts which have been problematic in the past may become subject to pre-moderation on everything they post. Excessive swearing is edited out (with a note to say the post has been edited).

What's interesting is the reason the BBC gives in its FAQs to the question "Why must we have moderation on BBC boards?" Answer ".... Moderation is necessary so all users can participate in discussions without fear of intimidation by other users or being subjected to offensive content. Also, people may intentionally or unintentionally post content that is unlawful, putting themselves as well as the BBC at risk of legal action. Moderation helps avoid expensive legal action that could cost hundreds of thousands of pounds of licence-fee payers' money...." I was surprised when I read it I was expecting something more along the lines of it being the right thing to do, or at least the money argument coupled with a statement that its the right thing to do.

I'm not sure if this BBC-link to the moderation board full FAQs will work outside the UK but anyway... --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment 2 - Trigger Street

I used to be a member of Trigger Street Labs, a website founded by Kevin Spacey and his business partner Dana Brunetti where people get feedback for screenplays, short stories and short fims. There is a credit process - review another member's work and you earn a credit, attach the credits to your own piece of work to make it rise to the top of the pile of scripts. There is also a jury system to prevent people gaming the system, an obvious way of earning a lot of credits is to make up a load of generic comments like, "the characters in this screenplay are very interesting", request another assignment, copy and paste, earn credit, and repeat.

The site had a Hall Of Justice for members who think the review that they received was unfair. There is a criteria for the reviews including: not cutting and pasting from other reviews, (if you think it has happened then the ref. no. from the other review is submitted as evidence), reviews should be constructive and non-abusive, a decent word length (I think the minimum was 100 words), there should also be evidence in the review that the reviewer definitely read / watched the submission. If a member thinks they have been unfairly treated then they send a review to the HOJ. Other members - let's call them arbitrators - with a high enough participation level (like having 'enough' edits in your edit history) can request a - randomly generated - docket, read the review, read the details of the complaint (e.g. "I think this review is a cut & past of ref. # 'x' ...."). The arbitrator who received the docket for review then has a choice of Y/N check-boxes relating to the docket (e.g. "The reviewer has cut and pasted their review from another review") and a comment form, for anything else that they might like to add. The same docket goes to a number of different random arbitrators in the same way. (Note: there is a limit to how many dockets a single member can request in 24 hrs.)

If the majority think it should go further, it is passed on to the jury. The key thing about it is, in the first instance it is other members with a basic account that make the decision, a similar system could possibly work for disputes on Wikipedia. Ironically the message boards were a mess with one of them called the "Free for all" message board. I also mentioned, at the top of this talk page (just prior to the section Early response from BHG & LB), how BBC message boards are moderated - so it never escalates to that point of needing arbitration in the first place. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Professional staff, pre-moderating comments would mean there would be no need for blocks / bans. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

While your ideas are appreciated and worthy of examination I do not think either idea would play well on this website for a variety of reasons.--MONGO 02:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Professional staff pre-moderating comments would indeed mean that there would be no need for most blocks and bans. It would also mean that Wikipedia would be an entirely different entity than it is now. The number of professional staff who would be required to moderate the comments would be substantial, probably considerably more than the current number of developers and other WMF employees. The WMF censors would be far more unpopular with the volunteer editors than WMF developers are. It is likely that the cost would exceed achievable donation revenue, and that the transformed Wikipedia would have to be advertising-funded, something that Wikipedia has never done and does not plan to do. In view of the visibility of a transformed Wikipedia, it would still be so much of a target for POV-pushers that it would probably have to maintain a list of banned users simply to save the time of the moderators, so that the need for bans would not be entirely eliminated anyway. It would be a very different compendium of knowledge than Wikipedia is. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

A pilot scheme would only have a small number of professional staff. They may prove unpopular with volunteer editors who enjoy their bad behaviour, but I think they would also generate new editors and improve retention among civil editors (which is the point of doing it). I think that, just like the BBC boards, there are areas that generate worse behaviour than others, there are also topics that are "hot" for while. It is also difficult to say what it would do for donations, the result could be positive with potential donors having greater faith in Wikipedia's ability to police itself. I didn't envisage that there would be no need for bans whatsoever, just that the current cat-and-mouse over short-term bans / blocks and the personal politics that circulate around temporary bans / blocks would be ameliorated.

In any case something has to change, I just read in another discussion that there were no RFAs for August or September and that long-time admins are quitting. That's unsustainable. From other discussions I get the same impression that you mentioned in your opening post about either relaxing or restating the civility issue. I've read comments from people who are from the "pro-incivility camp" who argue that content is king, and that editors of merit will survive the kicking process. That begs the question, "What is the point of having a civility pillar at all?" I think the pro-incvility ideology fails when it comes to the vulnerable in our society who have valuable contributions to make. Making sure that they are heard would turn Wikipedia into "a very different compendium of knowledge", but I think the change would be a positive one. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 05:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The fight against incivility is Wikipedia's version of the War on Drugs. Nobody wants an encyclopedia dominated by incivility, but forceful action to penalize it only makes it more widespread. The easier it is for editors to turn on one another in disciplinary proceedings, the more they will find ways to express their contempt for one another for doing so. The more that heavy-handed authorities can swoop down and eliminate comments they don't want heard (not to mention content), the less valuable the encyclopedia will be and the less respect people will have or show for it in any way. It may be possible to make limited policies that prohibit incivility from being shown in certain forms, such as overt threats of violence, but it is not possible to empty the human heart with policy. The only way to fight incivility is by organizing positive efforts against it, which is to say, convincing people to be more civil rather than compelling them. Wnt (talk) 08:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Bingo. Carrite (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The fight against incivility is Wikipedia's version of the War on Drugs. Nobody wants an encyclopedia dominated by incivility, but forceful action to penalize it only makes it more widespread. ... The only way to fight incivility is by organizing positive efforts against it, which is to say, convincing people to be more civil rather than compelling them. - Do you have any evidence to support this Wnt? Or anything that suggests the BBC's way of moderating its message boards has had a backlash? A recent survey of how the British are perceived internationally showed that 46% of those questioned regarded 'politeness and good manners' were the best characteristic of the British. The more that heavy-handed authorities can swoop down and eliminate comments they don't want heard (not to mention content), the less valuable the encyclopedia will be and the less respect people will have or show for it in any way. No comment or content should be censored, only the way that it is phrased is subject to scrutiny. "I don't think that is correct." is a civil version of "That's just f**king stupid!" There is no justification for using the second phrase. Poor retention of editors due to incivility is a form of censorship and the cloud that Wikipedia is currently living under. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I was trying hard not to get started on the British. Put it this way: when French intelligence agents pulled aside an admin here a while back and tried to get him to delete something, Wikipedians made fun of them,^[32] but just recently when the British Foreign Office briefly tried to get media not to say David Haines' name, oversighters and ultra high echelon admins went full mad trying to keep the name totally suppressed anywhere on Wikipedia, deleting AfDs and such, long after even the British press had started printing the name (everyone else had been from the start; his wife was giving interviews). This isn't the first time I've seen weird special treatment for issues regarding that particular country. I think some high-level authorities here forget sometimes that Wikipedia isn't an arm of the British government (like the BBC actually is), even to the degree that I seriously start to wonder if it is (cf. ECHELON), but in any case, no, I'm not feeling like admiring the British right now, nor the BBC, and I definitely have no desire to emulate them. Lady Liberty is an ugly bitch, and we love her! Wnt (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. Did you know Eric was in fact a secret Mossad agent based in an undercover cell in Langham Place?! 109.144.231.169 (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

No idea what you mean by that, but if you're being dismissive, I do suggest you see some of the published reports regarding media manipulation.^[33]^[34]^[35]^[36]^[37]^[38] So the thing to ask is not whether it is paranoid to think they would tamper with Wikipedia, but rather, is Wikipedia special? Has Wikipedia managed to make itself immune from their interventions where news reporting, Hollywood, social media, search engines, and others have failed? I doubt it. Wnt (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Employing professional staff to pre-moderate comments on the grounds of civility has nothing to do with the examples of censorship mentioned such as the French Foreign Office. Also, BBC programming and the moderating of the BBC's message boards are two different things. Having said that, David Haines wiki-link that has been posted links to a dab page, but I presume you mean this: David Haines. According to the Independent newspaper "Mr Haines’ identity had been kept secret for 19 months to avoid worsening his situation as a captive but the kidnapping was made public following the video’s [of Isis threatening to behead him] release." (link to article).

Discussions about moderating comments for civility as though they were censorship, rather than what they actually are - ending the existing censorship reminds me of this quote from Orwell's 1984 "... at just this moment it had been announced that Oceania was not after all at war with Eurasia. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Eurasia was an ally. ... There was, of course, no admission that any change had taken place. Merely it became known, with extreme suddenness and everywhere at once, that Eastasia and not Eurasia was the enemy. ... The thing that impressed Winston in looking back was that the speaker had switched from one line to the other actually in midsentence, not only without a pause, but without even breaking the syntax." --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've seen these policies abused. I've seen more than one editor get frustrated with admins trying to claim that he violated policy by trying to make his point, then use civility as a coup de grace when he lashes out and calls them "control freaks". I've seen an editor being cyberbullied off-site keelhauled for saying there was a conspiracy against him... when there was! It's one thing to look at an overall pattern of disruptive editing that is fundamentally useless and take action, but it's something else again to say that you can pull out one frustrated comment and take action against someone. And "civility" here generally refers to the latter. Wnt (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

That sounds more like a argument in favour of professionals - as opposed to admins - rather than an argument against. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 05:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that professionals are immune from bias on the underlying issues, and definitely I would expect them to crack down hard on any back-talk because they wouldn't want to be seen as being on a level with the unpaid people they block, otherwise why are they paid? But above all of these is a risk that they simply implement orders from a central command to suppress various types of information. My feeling is that the admins are already too professional, and that a jury system would give better results. Wnt (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, everybody, is this file still accurate? I just added it to the Workplace incivility page and I am not sure, because I noticed in the meantime, it was on the Commons:Deletion requests in 2012. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 08:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, this absolutely doesn't belong in an article - not unless a "reliable source" cites it as a symbol of incivility. Half a dozen Wikipedia editors using a graphic is not a sourced indication that it's relevant to the topic. But -- the source you were elaborating in the body in that edit would be worth explaining further, specifically, could you detail what they mean about incivility coming from "asymmetric global interaction"? Wnt (talk) 08:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't like the "Allegedly contributes good content" part of what you said Jimmy. You might not like Eric but he has most certainly contributed a lot of decent content here and at the end of the day it's a volunteer community. He's not being paid to edit. This isn't a formal workplace with salaries, dress and behaviour codes. It is odd that you consider civility more important than content given that it's an encyclopedia, but I can at least understand why you consider him to be a problem. At least acknowledge that he has produced good content though rather than "allegedly" good content, even if you can't stand him.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo if you feel so strongly about Eric and those of his ilk, why don't you just block them now - you are still an Admin after all. Either put your money where your mouth is or be quiet. Venting on your high profile talk page is just whipping up the very same ill feeling and hatred of which you accuse others of creating. Is that your intention, or are you hoping that others will do the deed for you? You know very well that if you, or indeed any other editor, has a complaint against a fellow editor there is a correct place and procedure for making that complaint. So make your complaint officialy or drop it. Giano (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

He did say he would but that he didn't want people thinking it was a personal vendetta.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

So Jimbo cares more for his personal reputation than that which he believes to be the good of the project? I don't think so. He knows very well that if he made an official complaint it's unlikely that the majority and the Arbcom would agree with him. Surprising perhaps to you, I too wish that Eric would moderate his language sometimes; however, on an encyclopedia content is king, rather than an individual who shouts and complains from the safety of the sidelines. Jimbo need to leave the safety of his page and make this official or be quiet.Giano (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

For those who are wondering, just found Wikipedia:Role_of_Jimmy_Wales which describes how his role works including Wikipedia:Role_of_Jimmy_Wales#Blocking_and_unblocking_users. Learn something specific everyday. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Eric's got more people who support the work he does than a lot of editors combined so I think it would be the inevitable massive backlash which would result from him being the one to ban him.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, you make it sound as if there's a big gang. So that anyone who challenges Eric over his obnoxious vile insults, for the good of others, will face violent retribution. Like gang warfare really. 109.154.154.81 (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

From what I've heard elsewhere, Jimbo does not exercise his authority over matters here, by and large, which is a good thing. I regard the thoughts here as his personal ones, which he and other people here are welcome to have.
In general, I find the following rule of thumb sensible: incivility threshold should be lower in a more public place. Related, but separate: there should be a higher incivility threshold on user talk pages, than article talk pages. User talk pages function more as chatting between people. There should be a still higher threshold on your own talk page. This does not mean that gross incivility is permitted; just the threshold is higher. To give my own sense of thresholds (not prescriptive), ~~Sitush's comments would not fall within the threshold~~, but an occasional "fuck off, don't post on my page again" on your own talk page is fine. This can be tweaked: WP:BITE always applies, and so on, but you get the basic idea. Talk page guidelines do not mention anything specific, perhaps this should be considered. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I think you're reading that statement the wrong way. Original, between the commas was "... and then an endless series of apologia due to their allegedly great content contributions (taking no account of the content contributions that they drive away with their outrageous behavior directly PLUS their overall influence on the tone and manner of the community as a whole...". 'allegedly great content contributions' follows with driving content away etc. This doesn't seem to be a diss on the content of Editor X but an opinion that in creating that content Editor X's incivility and influence - always apologised for by them or others - and the example it makes, drives away other potentially great content contributors such as Editor's Y, Z, A, B, C etc. AnonNep (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The word "alleged" is still false. Read Enid Blyton for instance, that allegedly wrote itself.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It struck me as a permutation of the old "Not A Real Wikipedian" canard when I first read it. As has been mentioned above, the fundamental cause of the controversy relates to differing levels of importance that people place upon "community values" vs. "content creation." For some the most important thing about WP is the aspect of "community" — the Wikipedia process itself has an almost metaphysical significance. Those who act abrasively and obnoxiously and with a mean-spirit are a very serious, serious problem indeed for those who feel the Wikipedia-crowdsourcing process is responsible for continued content generation and health of the project. At the other pole are those who feel the encyclopedia is what matters, not the romanticized and often dysfunctional process, and that it's a matter of simple math: so long as crabby people that sometimes act like jerks do more good than harm, they should be endured — or better yet, ignored. The wise slogan "Don't feed the trolls" has a corollary: Don't feed the grouches. There are some people who are just here for the drama, however, and they like to either poke the grouches to cause them to roar or else stalk the grouches so that they can throw drama petrol onto every spark. Those are the people who really need to be shown the door, if you ask me — they're the "net negatives to the project" that cause these enormous controversies over stupid crap that is easily ignored. Carrite (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

No. Whatever it is, it is not binary. Why do we want editors who focus on ideas and not individuals, per our civility policy, because this project is about ideas, and the more focus on personalities the worse-off, it is. Moreover, it is often incongruous to hear, 'we must give leeway, to this or that person' by some who then turn around and argue, 'not a social network', because it is those who argue, 'we must give leeway to this or that person' that seem to be make the Pedia into a social network. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC) (struck stray word. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC))

Sorry Alanscottwalker, I'm not a native English speaker, could you rephrase the above for me; it's left me confused. Giano 19:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Not binary means, not this or that (as the comment I was responding to suggested) . . . and . . . our civility policy advises discussing ideas and not people, and that goes along well with being an encyclopedia (perhaps a simplfying quote helps [39]). . . and . . . one is arguing for a social network, when one argues that a particular editor needs special dispensation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Enid Blyton and The Magic Faraway Tree aside, (theoretically) I read it as how does protecting one great content contributor, who's behaviour drives off another couple of dozen potentially great content contributors, equal a net gain for Wikipedia? It doesn't, so the first is an 'allegedly great' content contributor because, while we can point to what they have done, we don't what net loss they're causing to the project as a whole. AnonNep (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Why? Because when Eric knuckles down and avoids the drama and improves content from what I've seen his editing skills are worth those of several dozen of some of the editors we have here combined. Yes, there's a few editors as capable, but I've yet to encounter a better general article copyeditor, and how quickly he is able to turn around sloppy prose into something approaching FA standard, not to mention putting order into sourcing and sorting out mess. How many great content contributors who produce FAs or dramatically increase the standards of prose in articles exactly have all left because of Eric? I do honestly wish that he'd avoid saying certain things at times, purely for avoiding the response from others and time wasting if nothing else, but there is a reason why he's still here, and that's because a lot of us have first had experience of what he produces when he puts his mind to it which is pretty valuable. There is nothing "alleged" about it. While it is true that if we lost Eric, content production wouldn't cease or the project internally implode, but at the end of the day we're an encyclopedia who relies on a very small group of contributors to produce the goods. And a lot of people on here know this, which is why he's still here. Most "uncivil" disputes involve a range of people being uncivil Carrite, why do you think he's the only guilty part in it? In most of the disputes I've seen Eric involved in, while he could have avoided saying something in the first place, the response and behaviour from others at times has been every bit as abrasive, even worse, and I see a lot of double standards which go unpunished. If civility is so important to building an encyclopedia, then standards needs to be evenly enforced and it needs to extend to how people bully others psychologically on here too, if not direct sweary attacks. If Eric has to be shown the door for it, what about the many editors on here who exist purely to trolls forums and editors brandishing the civil stick and trying to provoke people into being blocked? What about the many editors who display astounding ignorance towards content and try to AFD notable articles and are uncivil when they don't get their way? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that interpretation flies. He didn't say "allegedly great content contributor", he said "their allegedly great content contributions". DeCausa (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Same difference. The quality of what they've produced doesn't outweigh the quality of those they may have driven away. AnonNep (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

But who precisely (name names) has Eric driven away, or is this conjecture on your part? Giano (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

My responses were on the use of the phrase 'allegedly great content contributions' not what the OP meant by it. AnonNep (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, if one is upset by what an editor posts on his/her talkpage? then the solution is simple. Remove that editor's talkpage from your watchlist. If an editor is being obnoxious to you? merely sidestep them & concentrate on the topic/not the editor. As I mentioned at Wikipedia: WikiProject Editor Retention, the best aproach is to be calm. There's been too much reporting of editors & dramatics. Concentrate on the content & things will go more smoothly. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with AnonNep. The "take a chill pill / survival of the fitest" attitude to incivility goes against the civility pillar and drives potentially great editors away. If the system needs changing to deal with incivility without being drawn into dramatics then be bold and change it. That way will attract greater diversity amongst editors, more charitable donations to the foundation and improve content. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Due to my current status, I shall neither support or oppose such attempts to tighten or loosen WP:CIVIL application. I do predict that there'll be a huge fight ahead, however. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I am struck by the irony that in a discussion about measures to improve civility there should be so much talk of potential "backlashes" and "huge fights". --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It's possible that changes could be made that neither tighten nor loosen existing restrictions, yet improve the situation. The biggest problem is that WP:Civility is 24k of mealy-mouthed blather that gives almost no idea what is acceptable and what isn't. Admins here seem to like ambiguity so that editors can't "game the system" -- problem is, the harder it is for editors to game the system because of the rule's vagueness, the easier it is for the admins to game the system, to protect those they like and punish those they don't. I actually tried editing down the policy, with very little change, to about 8k at WT:Civility/sandbox. Bugs in the existing policy include that it doesn't reference WP:EQ except in the navboxes, while restating big chunks of other policies, and it links to sexual harassment de novo in a very weak way because it's not part of WP:HARASS (I commented on that before, but no action). The appeal of a non-vague policy is that instead of trying to ban every hostile sentiment of the human heart, you could pick out just a few key things that are important and try to be fairly serious about them. Now, I lack confidence even that is a useful thing to do, but such a policy would be far easier for editors to follow (a.k.a. "game") than what we have now. Wnt (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe a tightening of WP:CIVIL is coming. It will (regretfully) cause some editors to retire, but newbies will replace them. Thus is the nature of Wikipedia, always changing. We'll all have to adjust our conduct in the future. GoodDay (talk) 10:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, it won't be enforced on many guys, mostly on uppity women. A woman can get a topic ban for a few frustrated outbursts against BLP-violating harassers, but a guy gets a 24 hour block for making threats/jokes about shooting other editors, including possibly me. We'll see how it works out getting the Foundation or Admins or Arbitrators taking a relevant case to let me know just what the threat really was. Male violence rules and females who object to it are made fools???? Well, that's the way of the world. Let's see if Wikipedia can set a higher standard. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)

I think we're both appalled at the very person-specific responses to civility around here. I tend to see the admin excesses, and my innate reaction is to take away their power so everyone is on a level. You seem to be hoping that they can be made to enforce the same strict standards on everyone. But what we both agree is that unfairness is a bad thing, and a clearer standard, whether strict or loose, is better than a vague one of the same intensity. Wnt (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I cannot emphasise this enough - if Eric Corbett tells you to <insert profanity here> off, ignore it. Per WP:NPA, "Sometimes personal attacks are not meant as attacks at all, and during heated and stressful debates editors tend to overreact". Have a look at an article Eric took through FAC - Moors Murders and read what happened to those victims - things really do pale in comparison when you've digested what's been written there. Do I condone such language? Not at all, I simply tolerate it to the best extent I can, while simultaneously setting a good example myself, and trust people can make up their own minds about whether what's said in a discussion is justified. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

If that's the kind of place you want WP to be, fine. But the problem, as Carolmooredc pointed out, is that inconsistencies of civility enforcement mean that not everyone would get that pass you want to give Eric, and that people whom admins have taken against, for reasons fair or foul, would live in fear of being leapt on for trivial infractions. Or we could tighten civility and make this a calmer and happier place to be – sadly though, that won't happen, because certain sections of the community have a habit of flaming whoever they take a dislike to. BethNaught (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I would also prefer that Wikipedia not be dominated by pedantic walls of text littered with blue links that are intended to sustain passive-aggressive attacks against other users. Sadly, that form of incivility is nowhere near as "sexy" as cursing, so very little is done about it. A fair number of solid contributors have been driven off by such users and their tactics (either through engineered blocks/bans or by frustration), but apparently that loss isn't considered vital. Intothat darkness 17:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Ignore it? Tolerate it? You have quoted an essay which opposes the spirit of civility pillar in every way, and then you have quoted NPA policy from a section which is clearly headed "First offenses and isolated incidents", and ask that it should be applied on any ocassion that Eric Corbett tells you to <insert profanity here> off - I cannot emphasise enough that that is a contradiction. The first time an editor does it, or if it's an isolated incident, then it's a friendly warning. After that they are knowingly in breach of WP:NPA and should expect action to be taken against them. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Editors found to be uncivil could be restriced to using an account with a username of the form "Eric Corbett X". Newcomers will be told about these "Eric Corbett editors", that will mitigate most of the problems some newcomers face when they encounter uncivil editors for the first time here. Count Iblis (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Around the time I became active on Wikipedia in 2006, an arbitration decision captured the core of the civility policy in one sentence: "Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other." If there's a reason we can't aspire to that at least as a baseline, I don't know what it is. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The baseline moves with some editors to fit whatever it is they say. Jimbo has this right and if Eric is so offended by it....he can stop adding content at any time or start trying to be more civil.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Problem is, people are people and people cope with adversity in different ways. Blocking people who lose their cool gives free reign to folks who deal with this...in other ways...so backchannelling, filibustering, faux indignance, tacitly sabotaging, writing arbcom election guides all go on...fun fun fun. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I prefer to deal with someone who I (for whatever reason) to blow off steam at me first-up and we sort it out (sometimes) rather than have them try and sabotage something I do months or years later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

A few more thoughts

The whole idea of being offensive and then expecting special consideration based on edit counts is backwards, like the derelict who approaches your vehicle with a spray bottle when you are stuck at a stop light, then wipes your windshield with a dirty rag and demands payment for "cleaning" your windshield, after it is already too late to refuse. Better to make the arrangements in advance. How many edits are required if you want to offend a newbie or a woman, and are they more or less valuable than say, a member of the Kshatriya caste? If someone wanted to be particularly injurious, and was a little short on their edit count, you might even be able to get them to make a donation to make up the difference. I know this is a somewhat eccentric proposal, but surely there have been other "modest" proposals throughout history. Think of it, once you put a price tag on the privilege of being vicious, you could even set up a system similar to carbon emissions taxation, and use the revenue to fund civility training for bullies and miscreants. Just sayin'. —Neotarf (talk) 05:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Why are you spreading this false rumor? Johnuniq (talk) 06:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You think it's a joke? Sure I phrased it in an ironic manner, but does anyone really not believe that displays of offensiveness that garden-variety editors would never get away with has become a badge of status? What about this logo? (And I bet it hasn't been uploaded to Commons, either.) —Neotarf (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Aaaand...someone has just made such a proposal.

Should a "High content contributor" subsection be added to When blocking may not be used?

Snow close. Teh community has spoke. —Neotarf (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Returning to the point

Jimbo (not one hundred other people opining) could you please, yourself, provide a definitive list of those driven from the project by Eric Corbett. I have read much of his "intimidating" behavior and have seen cast iron evidence of his "alleged" great content contributions, I've also seen cast iron evidence of his alleged command of Anglo-Saxon bluntness, which I don't particularly admire, but I've heard worse in my life, and I'm sure you have too - we are adults. However, I have not seen evidence of these multiple editors allegedly driven off Wikipedia by him. Can I at least have two or three editor's names, who's contribution history I could take a look at to verify the facts. Thanks. As ever.. Giano (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The only one that comes to my mind (since I was around at the time things happened) is AutomaticStrikeout, who later came back as Northern Antarctica. I can't think of any other example, but I have never had any unproductive interactions with Eric myself so I'm not the best person to ask about it. → Call me Hahc21 04:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Unless, you are Jimbo's sock, I wasn't asking you. Please read above carefully. Giano (talk) 08:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Khazar2 [40]. DeCausa (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you (...er... Jimbo?), but that editor appears still to be here; it's editors who have been driven off by Eric that I'm seeking. Giano (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Until his retirement in 2013 he had 187k edits. Since his retirement he made 7 edits (this September) to a thread in a WikiProject talk page. That's alright then. DeCausa (talk) 05:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I remember that one. Quite bizarre. He turned up on Eric's talk-page for no apparent reason, said something along the lines that Eric was someone who would only dare insult people from behind the safety of a keyboard, then retired claiming he was being bullied. I can hardly think that qualifies, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I provided the diff (above) where he gave his reason for leaving. It must therefore qualify in respect of the specific questioned asked by Giano. Whether he was "justified" in having that as a reason for leaving is a different question with a subjective answer. DeCausa (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I quit because of Eric.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Stephen_Hawking/archive1&diff=prev&oldid=585030505}. --Slp1 (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Merely a research point. To indicate a specific editor was driving people off, one would have to a) identify what behavior(s) allegedly were driving them off and b) go to, say, their last 50 odd articles and see how often these behaviors impacted editor behavior (i.e., did the person announce they were quitting? Or did they just stop editing that article and their contributions rapidly or immediately diminish to nothing after witnessing the behavior?) and c) if there are allegations that the individual in question is allowed to violate policy in ways that average editors are not, look at their last 20 or 30 ANIs, noticeboard discussions, Arbitrations and see if individuals who objected to the behaviors and witnessed double standard application of policy announce they were quitting? Or did their contributions rapidly or immediately diminish to nothing after one or more such incidents?

Of course, it's not possible to count lurkers on such pages who decided to never edit articles again if that's the way editors are allowed to act because there is an obvious double standard application of rules. It could be assumed there would be at least a small percentage more of such "drop outs". Statisticians might be able to figure out probabilities.
There obviously would be a lot of subjectivity involved in this, so outside researchers familiar with Wikipedia editing protocols but unaware of the specific individuals/articles/incidents involved would help. Sounds like a fun project for the Foundation to fund. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

User:RickK. Count Iblis (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to be the bearer of unwelcome tidings, but RickK was an admin who resigned from the project two years before Eric made his first edit. RickK was subsequently desysopped for sockpuppetry. Giano (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you are looking for the wrong sort of dynamics. If we assume that RickK was honest about his reasons for leaving Wikipedia in 2005, then it's safe to assume that some fraction of the population will have a similar attitude as RickK did when they become editors here. They may start to edit here an an IP and then not like it here and not become a regular editor here. This is then in general not due to a few encounters with Eric, rather when soemthing happens there isn't enough feedback from the community. So, I think you have to interpret what Jimbo is saying about Eric more in a general sense and more about the community tolerating Eric as the problem, rather than Eric himself (although he is also seen to be a problem). So, it's the community that is tolerating Eric, and by implication that means anyone like Eric is being tolerated, which which means that the general editing climate may be such that people visiting Wikipedia are turned off from becoming regular contributors. I'm not saying that I support this view, but I think Jimbo's comments should be interpreted in this way. Count Iblis (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to translate that paragraph "I got that completely wrong, but instead of actually admitting it I'll write a bit wall of text instead to attempt to deflect people away from the fact that I got that completely wrong". A normal person would have apologised and struck it, but there you go. Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Everyone knows Eric had as much to do with RickK as Obama had to do with Napoleon. It's just that I think RickK's statement on his userpage was quite clear; I think that wat RickK said (pointing to the general climate rather than one particular problem editor) is the real issue here. Again, I'm not sure that I would agree with that, but it should be clear that one particular editor cannot be the real issue. If there is an Al Capone who is above the law then the real problem is the ineffective law enforcement. Count Iblis (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Totally amazing: the first eleven words of this thread and not one person heeds them. Now that in itself must prove something about the type of person editing Wikipedia. Giano (talk) 07:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course it does. We don't obey orders if we don't want to. (Just like you can ignore the answers if you want to, as seems to be the case).DeCausa (talk) 08:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's do some good old fashioned research. Here's what I can find online about Eric in his former identity as Malleus Fatuorum from offsite sources :

"The most famous editor in wikiland is a Manc called Malleus Fatuorum (Hammer of Fools) You’d probably get on. He is quite foul-mouthed and abusive to those who make dumb errors, and recently he conducted a two year “sockpuppet” mission to prove a point/take the piss out of admin, a move that would have seen anyone else banned like that" [41]
"Veteran content-writer Malleus Fatuorum pins his hopes on this. “It’s not at all obvious that Wikipedia’s model of unpaid and under-appreciated editors subjected to the harassment of an overly self-important admin cadre has any legs; for myself I contribute in the hope that something better will come along, and that our work will be ported over to it." [42]
"Two of the strongest voices on Wikipedia, Malleus Fatuorum and The Parrot of Doom are British, have a slew of excellent articles under their belts, and are just two I can name off the top of my head. There are many more." [43]
""Malleus Fatuorum" is the user who has edited the most in recent history. This user is a "Senior Editor II" which means he has at least 35,000 edits and 4.5 years of service. He has also created roughly 50 articles." [44]

So, if we treat those as reliable sources, we would come out with the conclusion that Eric is a respected and prolific article creator, who expects contributors to be here for content and will criticise those that aren't, and there's no obvious documentation about any blatant harassment from him. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I saw DeCausa's ping above and since I happen to be on this week I thought I'd chime to clarify a few points. Yes, I am a content contributor who left Wikipedia because of Eric and those like him, and yes, I am still functionally retired. I made around 50,000 edits in 2013, and I think this is my ninth edit this year, most of which have been to talk pages--there's a proposal for an Amnesty-Wikipedia partnership at WikiProject Human rights that I'm still interested in. Though Eric never went after me personally, I'd witnessed or been involved in enough of his flare-ups at WT:GAN and elsewhere that I'd gotten tired of watching him lash out at other people, and tired of the community allowing it. I don't consider myself a fragile little flower (I worked in real-life publishing for some years and quite liked it), but I came to find Wikipedia a deeply unpleasant place compared to other professional and volunteer groups I'd been a part of. I realize many people disagree with me about Eric, including some editors I particularly admire (like User:Sagaciousphil, great to see you below!). So who knows, maybe I had the wrong end of the stick. All I can say is that I personally got burnt out on the atmosphere here, and Eric was a significant part of that. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Heading to divide from the bit above

It isn't very civil to have a discussion about Eric's personality and actions in a forum from which he has been banned. Belle (talk) 11:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right. It should probably be hatted. But it should be said that the OPs of the whole thread and of one of the sub-threads opened them with the aim of being supportive of him. DeCausa (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

That is thoughtful of you, to be so considerate of Eric's feelings, but I think it would be more unfair to Jimbo to hat a thread on his own talk page before he's had a chance to respond to it. Giano (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

He has no obligation to respond; indeed I hope he does not. There's nothing to be gained by speaking ill of Eric in response to your demand. At least your demand that no one else respond helped discourage more drama.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

"Your demand": Please read again, I quite clearly say please, which makes it a request. Demanding from Jimbo woudl be a crime de lèse-majesté. Giano (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Attn: User:Dr. Blofeld for future reference. General principles coming from certain situations, with perhaps a link to some official proceeding, are much better. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

See what I mean. Everybody's uncivil here aren't they, no matter what they do.... I defend Eric and Sitush from the actions of administrators and I'm uncivil. Quite absurd.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It is absurd, isn't it? Let's play a game: I'll make an observation about how it's not particularly courteous to exclude somebody from taking part in a conversation and then malign them, and then anybody else who wants to play can add a non sequitur underneath it. You lose points if you read any of the previous comments but get bonus points if you manage to include your own hobby horse. Belle (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Returning (once again) to the point

Jimbo, I realsie with so many posting on your page how easily it must be to miss a a simply answered question like this; so once again: Jimbo (not one hundred other people opining) could you please, yourself, provide a definitive list of those driven from the project by Eric Corbett. I have read much of his "intimidating" behavior and have seen cast iron evidence of his "alleged" great content contributions, I've also seen cast iron evidence of his alleged command of Anglo-Saxon bluntness, which I don't particularly admire, but I've heard worse in my life, and I'm sure you have too - we are adults. However, I have not seen evidence of these multiple editors allegedly driven off Wikipedia by him. Can I at least have two or three editor's names, who's contribution history I could take a look at to verify the facts. Thanks. Yours in perpetual hope Giano (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

While I might have outlined for fun an evidentiary process above, it's clear that policies against certain behaviors already exist. The consequences of misbehavior are obviously important, but they don't have to be proved to deal with the behavior. Whether it's someone taking a break, leaving Wikipedia, creating a new persona, writing an expose in the New York Times, etc., some individuals might not want to advertise their decision. So this is an irrelevant tangent. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is my last contribution to this subject (and I apologize for not being Jimbo). This "give me the list" silliness doesn't disprove the widely and firmly held understanding that Eric is uncivil and has offended many editors. Even if other editors like myself completely understand how Eric works and vents, and don't get particularly offended by any of it. I'd rather he write articles and keep writing them. But the excellent editor who got me started participating here years ago, JayHenry, made a comment at Eric's second RFA in 2008 which strongly summarized Eric's problem. And I didn't want to bring this up, but you guys won't stop bitching. Jay said, in oppose vote #4,
Very Strong Oppose. Malleus is fine as a content editor, but frankly: he's one of the rudest and most immature editors on the entire project. Q3 sounds nice, but if you're looking for ad hominem attack and sophistry look through Malleus's contributions to talk pages. It's not just unprofessional, but often cruel and boorish to the point of being fatuous. It is precisely as a content editor that I oppose. Some of the most frequent targets of his savagery are the hardest working content editors on the project. I was surprised Iridescent linked to Larry Sanger's farewell: "To treat your fellow productive, well-meaning members of Wikipedia with respect and good will". Is that a joke? Malleus fails at this spectacularly. A good copy editor who demoralizes 50 other editors is not making a positive contribution. This seems harsh, and brings me no joy at all, but it's nothing compared to what he dishes.
Now I know Eric is not asking to be an admin, but there you go. Can we please stop? Online, we are the person we present ourselves to be to others, no matter who we believe we are. Let's all try to be on the project the type of person we think we are.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

And it seems apparent that no matter how many times it's stated that a large number of editors, including many females, find Eric is brilliant to work with, helpful, collaborative and thoughtful as well as respectful is just ignored. Perhaps those of us who appreciate Eric's work are not sufficiently vocal/vociferous - or would rather be working on content to improve an encyclopedia than spending all our time stirring things up? SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Um, Phil, it's WOMEN, not "females" (we are not mere animals while men are people) and this feminist woman happens to have collaborated well with Eric, and he only was obnoxiously rude to me once, and that early on, over some irrelevant talk page drama, and before we had worked successfully together. I got over it. I've endured significantly worse actual malice, bullying and trolling from any number of other editors. The Illustrious Mr. Corbett has never tried to do ridiculous things, for example, like drag me to ANI for a revert, or ask that I be blocked for calling a notorious sockpuppet on their crap - I've seen toxic, Corbett is NOT toxic. If Jimbo or, for that matter, Carolmooredc think Corbett is the problem, then frankly, they don't get out much in wiki-land. Corbett-snark is nothing compared to what you get if you actually challenge an aggressive editor with a true POV agenda who lashes out viciously against anyone challenging them. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Returning (yet once again) to the point

Jimbo, it's becoming increasingly obvious that with so many posting on your page how easily it must be to miss a a simply answered question like this; so once again: Jimbo (not one hundred other people opining) could you please, yourself, provide a definitive list of those driven from the project by Eric Corbett. I have read much of his "intimidating" behavior and have seen cast iron evidence of his "alleged" great content contributions, I've also seen cast iron evidence of his alleged command of Anglo-Saxon bluntness, which I don't particularly admire, but I've heard worse in my life, and I'm sure you have too - we are adults. However, I have not seen evidence of these multiple editors allegedly driven off Wikipedia by him. Can I at least have two or three editor's names, who's contribution history I could take a look at to verify the facts. Thanks. Yours in ever perpetual hope. Giano (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I'm looking for that page I've heard about on en.wiki where I can trade in my content contributions for abuse tokens. Can you help? AnonNep (talk) 00:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:RFA Everyking (talk) 03:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it just totally amazing. One asks Jimbo a simple question - he's been telling us all for ages about these people who've been driven off by Eric. Having said and insinuated it so often, one woudl assume that Jimbo has this information at his finger tips. Yet he seems incapable of answering, instead we have the usual rag tag bag of rabble and noise all piling on Eric - yet where is the cast iron proof that he's driven a single editor off. I have yet to see it. You can hat this thread now, I've seen and heard quite enough to draw a conclusion, which is that it's probably the double standards and noise making rabble who drive people away - that's assuming that anyone, who really wants o edit, is actually driven away. Giano (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Repeatedly attacking and making allegations against an editor who is forbidden to post here, and refusing to provide evidence when asked, is definitely worthy of a block. Do be careful, Jimbo. I won't block you but if you repeat this I will take you to AN/I or ArbCom. Consider this a warning, please. --John (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm laughing so hard I literally have milk coming out of my nose.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea why. Any other editor who repeatedly attacked another on their talk page whilst providing no evidence whatsoever, and then persistently refused to provide said evidence, would have been at ANI by now. Why is this different? Black Kite (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I see but one comment regarding Eric by Jimbo way above. I assume you must have multiple examples.--MONGO 22:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It is often quite obvious, when Jimbo talks of "disruptive editors" and civility that he is really talking about Corbett. KonveyorBelt 04:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

my comment on Walterruss proposal

sorry I was busy, and only few minutes ago have got the message --Idot (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

note just a minute ago I looked at a dictionary what the phrasal verb "step down" means... --Idot (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

the only way to reverse the negative trend of deleting other editors good faith edits would be for Jimmy Wales to step down... Walterruss

there is no Jimbo in Russian Wikipedia, however Deletists in Russian Wikipedia MUCH STRONGER than in English Wikipedia, so Walterruss's suggestion will make situation much worsen (Idot (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC))

Your Gamergate email exchange

The person you corresponded with regarding GamerGate has posted your email exchange online:

http://pastebin.com/hPy6nxGJ http://pastebin.com/thWdr0mB http://pastebin.com/CixFBJgv http://pastebin.com/1iZub9bk http://pastebin.com/FiaqHEv8 http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2hwlpj/here_is_a_leak_of_jimmy_wales_talking_about/

Skimming these, I am impressed that you are willing to devote so much time attempting to reason someone like this. It reminds me of something you said about Wikipedia once: "I generally find myself astounded at how nice we are to complete maniacs, and for how long." Gamaliel (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it would be good to publish or comment on leaked material, Gamaliel, especially when it pertains to private emails which were never intended to be public. Tutelary (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind in this case. It's all very exciting to read "leak" but honestly it's just pretty much standard advice.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

JW. He leaked your email, you could "leak" his name. That would put Mr. Anonymous Anti-"Social Justice Warrior"'s XXXL Superman Underoos™ in a bunch... Carrite (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Not really my style. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That's what this page was for. Count Iblis (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Malicious misuse of Administrator privileges

Dear Jimbo Wales: I used to be an editor in the English Wikipedia with the user name 武士道, making decent contributions on subjects of my personal interest and professional expertise, as a travelling academician and diplomat who has authored a number of books and magazine articles in these fields. However, I was suddenly (without a reason or warning) accused of being a "sock" by an administrator named Future Perfect at Sunrise, who has indefinitely blocked me from editing in Wikipedia. In my opinion, this is a clear abuse of administrator privileges and has to be dealt with in the highest level. I suspect that it can even be a case of blatant racism. Best regards. 78.181.140.164 (talk) 06:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing RfC

There is a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism#RfC regarding close paraphrasing and plagiarism. Community involvement is requested. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thom Hartmann

How would you evaluate Thom Hartmann's critique of Wikipedia's Reaganomics article at [45]? Seattle (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not in a position at the moment to view a Youtube video. What's the core of his critique?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It is difficult to respond without getting into a debate about supply-side economics, and I feel fairly sure that Jimbo is not interested in using this page for that debate. For those who cannot see the video, Thom Hartmann quotes a portion of the Reaganomics article:

Before Reagan's election, supply side policy was considered unconventional by the moderate wing of the Republican Party, though in reality John F. Kennedy in his 1963 State of the Union address, proposed substantial reduction in marginal tax rates, as well as a reduction in corporate tax rates

Hartmann then claims, "yeah, but it wasn't Reaganomics." He then has his assistant cue up the Kennedy quote, which includes the phrase "...I think it is possible to gain 700 million to a billion dollars..." Hartmann emphasizes the word "gain".

I'll leave it to professional economist to delve into whether Kennedy's plan would be accurately defined as Reaganomics, but my understanding of Supply-side economics is that a central theme is that lowering of the marginal tax rate would increase revenues. Hartmannn's emphasis on the word "gain" leaves the impression that he has skewered the Wikipedia statement, when in fact he has supported it. Kennedy proposed reductions in the top marginal rate while simultaneously tightening up deductions, an aspect which is not a central theme of the Laffer curve inspired push for lower top marginal rates, but the article does not say that the Kennedy plan was a perfect instance of Reaganomics, it introduces it as part of the historical content.

I think Hartmann evinces a misunderstanding of the content, but that is a debate best held elsewhere, possibly on the talk page of the Reaganomics article. --S Philbrick (Talk) 13:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

However, a reasonable subject for this page is whether Wikipedia has been, as suggested by Hartmannn, unduly influenced by the right. I don't think the general point is supported by evidence and if one wanted to identify evidence, Hartmann's comment would not be much of a data point.--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's another data point: GOP Opposition Research Firm Is Editing Democratic Politicians’ Wikipedia Pages Gamaliel (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

OMG! This will be the end of Wikipedia! If conservatives start working on the Barack Obama article we might have to shut the website down! We can't let our slobbering love affair disgrace of a featured article about Obama and other liberal politicians get tainted with any criticism by those mean nasty conservatives! Just who do these conservatives think they are....Wikipedia is for liberals only after all! Besides there has never been any proof that paid left wing or liberal editors have edited articles about conservatives...I mean never ever!--MONGO 17:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you be any more of a cliche? Hysterically deny deny deny, then when forced to concede to the evidence, immediately attempt to justify it by claiming "liberals are doing it too", without evidence of course. Gamaliel (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

As a housekeeping matter, I've blocked that account, though it has already stopped editing. The block is a formal way to prevent a resumption, to document that the editing was unacceptable, and to provide grounds for further blocks should there be sock puppetry from the same editor or colleagues at the same firm. Jehochman ^Talk 16:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jehochman: An account whose activity is no longer visible? I see no comment above from a blocked account.--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 21:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Um -- what is this source supposed to mean? A person has a COI because he edited about a college basketball team? AFAICT, the massive conspiracy wrt political BLPs consists of a single researcher ("Sprinkler Court"), and where no improper edits were made? If one wishes a conspiracy theory, one would need a lot more than this source. The article tries to assert others were in on this massive paid editing conspiracy: (His edits, however, appear to only be of the George Washington University basketball team: appears to be the sort of comment which weakens the claim of COI editing by that person). I have supported locking political BLPs during silly season in whichever country the people are in, but this rather pushes the envelope. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Attempts to suppress points of view are certainly not limited to Democrats and Republicans, nor to Wikipedia. If you want to see something sickening, just look up all the professors who have been driven out of universities because they took a pro-Palestine position. [46][47][48] and most recently [49]; more at Peter N. Kirstein. In order for people not to be used entirely as pawns in some conflict they may or may not know even exists, they have to have a very strong and genuine respect for freedom of inquiry, for everyone having their say, even as they are scrupulously careful to avoid overstating what has actually been said. We can have peace between warring political factions, but only if we resist all calls to employ "editorial judgment" and instead simply document whatever can be documented, without overstating its importance. Wnt (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that people should be free to express their political views. But Wikipedia isn't the place. If people edit here as an extension of political advocacy, they need to be stopped. A professor should be allowed to write an op-ed piece without being fired, or a blog post, or give a speech. If the same professor comes to Wikipedia and uses it to spread a partisan message, they can be blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 16:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see political advocacy per se as a problem; it can be a useful inspiration, especially when the editor's POV is rare, provided that editors are driven by it to add accurate information in a neutral way that tends to back up their point of view, rather than deleting data or causing trouble for other editors. Wnt (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Wikipedia articles are often written as if radical anarcho-capitalist libertarian policies are mainstream instead of fringe, and as if the Chicago School is more reputable in the peer-reviewed secondary economics sources than Keynesianism, and austerity is supported by empirical evidence. None of those things are true. Most editors seem to have no idea how inaccurate Wikipedia's economics articles are compared to high quality reliable secondary sources. If we had 10% of the people who enforce WP:MEDRS working to be as strictly accurate on economics articles, we would see some major article overhauls, and at least a couple administrators desysoped for relentless fringe POV-pushing. I suspect that Jimbo's reputation as an Objectivist early in Wikipedia's development attracted and entrenched several such systemic inaccuracies. EllenCT (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

There's also that you're just wrong about the state of the academic literature by any sensible standard. POV pushing takes many forms, and you may find it hard to recognize your own.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you think anarcho-capitalist libertarianism is mainstream? Or Chicago School forecasters have a better track record than Keynesians? Or there's evidence that austerity isn't counter-productive? EllenCT (talk) 06:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Came here to agree with EllenCT, who has nailed the problem. We've got the same nonsense going on over at Neil deGrasse Tyson, with fringe sources going after Tyson for promoting evolution. Viriditas (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Bravo EllenCT. And let me also state that it's not just Wikipedia that follows this absurd trend, but the supposedly 'unbiased' media. Who seem to believe that giving 'both sides' is the same as being 'unbiased', even if one side is obviously completely incorrect. Would that be excused in medicine? No way. Dave Dial (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I cant speak for economics, but I do have a PoliSci degree so, User:EllenCT for what it's worth the Chicago School has contributed more to modern political science than Keynesian economics, which actually is carried on today through New Keynesian economics as an update to rectify the problems the Chicago School pointed out to Keynes' theories, so really thanks to the Chicago School some problems were forced to be confronted. Public choice theory, an underlining pillar of modern political science is also thanks to the Chicago School of economics.Camelbinky (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Both New Keynesianism and the Chicago School are mainstream by Wikipedia's standard, but the former has the better track record of prediction, especially recently. I should have written New Keynesianism instead of just Keynesianism above, and I hope that is what Jimbo was complaining about. But I have a feeling there's quite a bit more to it than that. I hope he will clarify. EllenCT (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Measuring the reliability of en.Wikipedia

Hi Jimmy. Do you think the Wikimedia Foundation should have an ongoing program (and budget allocation) for it? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I think they do have some programs like this, but they may be small. The real challenge, of course, is how do you define reliability? Essentially the question is "compared to what?" If we had the "Book of Truth", all we would have to do is have somebody compare articles against the BoT, and count the errors, but we don't have a BoT so we have to make do with something else, which will have its own errors, biases, be out-of-date, etc.

NY Brad had an idea in the Signpost a few weeks ago, roughly - the only source comparable in breadth, reach and timeliness to Wikipedia is "the rest of the internet." Expanding a bit, we might ask a couple hundred journalists to volunteer a couple of hours of their time. Assign each a topic/article within their general area of expertise, e.g. finance, American politics, religion, business, literature, movies, ... Half should be asked to review the internet without Wikipedia for an hour on that topic, while making notes from the best sources on the internet (BSI) and comparing that "knowledge" to what they have learned about the topic from life experience, next review the Wikipedia article in the same way for up to an hour, and do a relative rating (W vs. BSI) on breath of coverage, depth of coverage, likely errors, timeliness. Writing style would be difficult to compare. The other half would review the Wikipedia article first, then the rest of the internet. It's do-able if we can get the journalists. Probably get a good deal of coverage as well. I wouldn't want to bet on the outcome, but I don't think Wikipedians would be ashamed by the results. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to see more research in this area, and I think there are several considerations as to whether the Wikimedia Foundation should be doing it. First, if the WMF is doing it, then I think the focus should not be on "proving" (or "disproving") the quality of Wikipedia since no one is going to believe an in-house study anyway. Rather, if the WMF is doing it, then the focus should be on helping the community learn more about where problems lie and what the causes of problems usually are, and to help research solutions. Second, if we want research that is not just useful for us, but also has external credibility then funding outside researchers with no strings attached could make sense. But note well that even here, if the WMF is funding it, many will view the results as inherently biased. (As for me, I am cautious and skeptical of research produced by or funded by, for example, oil companies or the tobacco industry.) So finally, I think what the WMF could do here is encourage independent academics to do more research in this area.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I agree with all of that.

One thing I'd like to see is an independently funded, independently conducted high quality systematic review of all the existing research into the reliability of our medical offering. There was a review, nominally covering all studies into Wikipedia's reliability, conducted back in 2012 [50], but it missed a lot of the studies into our medical content, didn't outline the inclusion criteria, and didn't assess in a systematic way the strength of each of the studies included. Can I email some ideas to you? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes but better than just emailing (which may be emailing into a black hole given my schedule for the next month) perhaps we should think of a strategy to move these ideas forward.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

OK. (Given what you've just said, I expect the chances are slim, but: I'll be in London from 20—25 October and San Francisco to 6 November. If any of that matches your schedule and you can and would like to meet up, I'd welcome the opportunity for a chat about this and tactics for improving the reliability of our medical content.)

I'm not sure what the best approach to measuring all of en.Wikipedia's reliability might be ... but I have an idea how to do it for our medical offering. If we can successfully measure the reliability of that domain, perhaps other topics will follow our example.

We should begin with a rigorous systematic review of all of the existing studies into the accuracy and completeness of our medical articles. I've read most of that research and my non-expert opinion is that it is so poorly designed that it can tell us little worth knowing about the trustworthiness of our medical content, in general or even in specific sub-domains.

If expert reviewers share my view (that the quality of the research to date is so poor and fragmentary that little of value can be drawn from it) they will recommend that someone conducts a well-designed, rigorous study: a study with a big enough sample size to mean something, with transparent inclusion criteria, with sensible metrics for accuracy and completeness, etc.

Who should fund and conduct the review and the study it is likely to recommend? Well, funding can come from one of the charitable trusts and foundations with a remit to advance public understanding of medicine; and, as you suggest, the lead author should be someone with no ties to Wikipedia - though the team should include at least one experienced Wikipedian.

I have a few institutions in mind for funding both the systematic review and any subsequent study, and you might have some ideas on that, too. I'm confident funding won't be an issue.

As for who should conduct the review and any subsequent study: the British Medical Association and the American Medical Association collectively have centuries of experience in assessing scientific and medical research, and I can't think of any institutions better placed to offer sensible guidance on what team should do this work. Given that most doctors and patients consult Wikipedia, I'm optimistic those institutions could be persuaded to help. One (or a task force involving both) may well take responsibility for the review and the study. We should, at least, ask them to. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Anthonyhcole. In case you are not aware, I wanted to be sure to point out that there are resources at meta:Research:Index that might help you. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Maggie. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia attracts a number of studies, partly because of its visibility, partly because the open nature of the data makes it relatively easy for researchers to study. Anyone can download a complete version of the encyclopedia, including most of its history. That said, the volume of data is fairly large, both a blessing and a curse to a researcher. Do we know whether there are ways we could organize the data to make it easier for researchers to study the contents? It might be worth convening a small study group of researchers and developers, to identify challenges that may have prevented researchers from doing more studies or more complete studies. This might generate two types of positive results. The direct result would be that making the data base easier to analyze would result in more studies of the content, which helps everyone. Second, identification of some challenges might help us design our system in a way that helps editors as well.

For example, a researcher might be interested in how often certain high quality references are cited. At present, it may not be trivial to identify all citations to a particular journal; some may use a DOI, some may use a bare url, some may form a citation in another way. Ramping up our (existing?) initiative to store citations in Wikidata in a unique way, and have all references to that citation use the same citation would make it easier for editors to add references, and easier for researchers to study which reference sources are used most often.--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually we do have a book of thruth. There are many topics that today are uncontroversial, in the sense that almost all reliable sources will agree with each other about certain facts. In some of these case, however, the topic was quite controversial in the near past. Good quality sources will give the reader a good overview of the known facts and if some ideas are preferred by experts then it will be explained why that is the case. But you may then also have people with an agenda writing up an article in some journal arguing for less well established theories. What we can do is check if the old Wikipedia pages on such topics tended to give too much weight on the less well established theories. Also if the right choices were made, it is still possible that there were a lot of editing disputes that were ultimately settled in favor of the right editorial choices, but all these disputes may have led to a bad editing climate (the articles on climate change may be such an example). Count Iblis (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I hope that any study of Wikipedia's content reliability (or accuracy) will investigate whether content added by suspected paid editors or editors with a personal conflict of interest (e.g., an employee of a company editing about that company) is any better or worse than content that is added by editors assumed to have no such conflicts. There is a thread at Wikipediocracy called "obvious paid editors are obvious", and one thing that seems to be consistent across most of the scores of incidents discovered there, is that the content that these editors add to Wikipedia appears (for the most part) to be accurate. Somehow I doubt that a WMF-funded study of Wikipedia's accuracy would explore that, given that if the answer comes back that paid editors are, on the whole, "better" than volunteer editors, that's a finding that the WMF would choose to suppress. - 50.144.2.141 (talk) 12:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Museum of curiosity

For those who weren't listening to BBC Radio 4 earlier this evening, Jimbo can be heard on The Museum of Curiosity on BBC iPlayer for the next 4 weeks (though I'm not sure it's available outside the UK). Invited to make a hypothetical donation to this fictional museum, he offered an internet-enabled mobile phone he'll be able to buy in Kenya for $10 in 2019. The other two guests offered a pubic louse and a moon crater. (It's that kind of museum, through the powers of imagination and radio.) And, yes, the article on his fellow guest Kees Moeliker was created during the programme, at 18:53; the article on the Domino sparrow, by contrast, was created in 2005. PamD 21:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

They wouldn't let me donate the world's largest encyclopedia. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

BBC radio is definitely available worldwide. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 03:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Emergent (website): fact and fiction

The website Emergent (http://www.emergent.info) examines news stories to decide whether they are true or false.
—Wavelength (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter—September and October 2014

Did you know?

TemplateData is a separate program that organizes information about the parameters that can be used in a template. VisualEditor reads that data, and uses it to populate its simplified template dialogs.

With the new TemplateData editor, it is easier to add information about parameters, because the ones you need to use are pre-loaded.

See the help page for TemplateData for more information about adding TemplateData. The user guide has information about how to use VisualEditor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing team has reduced technical debt, simplified some workflows for template and citation editing, made major progress on Internet Explorer support, and fixed over 125 bugs and requests. Several performance improvements were made, especially to the system around re-using references and reference lists. Weekly updates are posted on Mediawiki.org.

There were three issues that required urgent fixes: a deployment error that meant that many buttons didn't work correctly (bugs 69856 and 69864), a problem with edit conflicts that left the editor with nowhere to go (bug 69150), and a problem in Internet Explorer 11 that caused replaced some categories with a link to the system message, MediaWiki:Badtitletext (bug 70894) when you saved. The developers apologize for the disruption, and thank the people who reported these problems quickly.

Increased support for devices and browsers

Internet Explorer 10 and 11 users now have access to VisualEditor. This means that about 5% of Wikimedia's users will now get an "Edit" tab alongside the existing "Edit source" tab. Support for Internet Explorer 9 is planned for the future.

Tablet users browsing the site's mobile mode now have the option of using a mobile-specific form of VisualEditor. More editing tools, and availability of VisualEditor on smartphones, is planned for the future. The mobile version of VisualEditor was tweaked to show the context menu for citations instead of basic references (bug 68897). A bug that broke the editor in iOS was corrected and released early (bug 68949). For mobile tablet users, three bugs related to scrolling were fixed (bug 66697, bug 68828, bug 69630). You can use VisualEditor on the mobile version of Wikipedia from your tablet by clicking on the cog in the top-right when editing a page and choosing which editor to use.

TemplateData editor

A tool for editing TemplateData will be deployed to more Wikipedias soon. Other Wikipedias and some other projects may receive access next month. This tool makes it easier to add TemplateData to the template's documentation. When the tool is enabled, it will add a button above every editing window for a template (including documentation subpages). To use it, edit the template or a subpage, and then click the "Edit template data" button at the top. Read the help page for TemplateData. You can test the TemplateData editor in a sandbox at Mediawiki.org. Remember that TemplateData should be placed either on a documentation subpage or on the template page itself. Only one block of TemplateData will be used per template.

Other changes

Several interface messages and labels were changed to be simpler, clearer, or shorter, based on feedback from translators and editors. The formatting of dialogs was changed, and more changes to the appearance will be coming soon, when VisualEditor implements the new MediaWiki theme from Design. (A preview of the theme is available on Labs for developers.) The team also made some improvements for users of the Monobook skin that improved the size of text in toolbars and fixed selections that overlapped menus.

VisualEditor-MediaWiki now supplies the mw-redirect or mw-disambig class on links to redirects and disambiguation pages, so that user gadgets that colour in these in types of links can be created.

Templates' fields can be marked as 'required' in TemplateData. If a parameter is marked as required, then you cannot delete that field when you add a new template or edit an existing one (bug 60358).

Language support improved by making annotations use bi-directional isolation (so they display correctly with cursoring behaviour as expected) and by fixing a bug that crashed VisualEditor when trying to edit a page with a dir attribute but no lang set (bug 69955).

Looking ahead

The team posts details about planned work on the VisualEditor roadmap. The VisualEditor team plans to add auto-fill features for citations soon, perhaps in late October.

The team is also working on support for adding rows and columns to tables, and early work for this may appear within the month. Please comment on the design at Mediawiki.org.

In the future, real-time collaborative editing may be possible in VisualEditor. Some early preparatory work for this was recently done.

Supporting your wiki

At Wikimania, several developers gave presentations about VisualEditor. A translation sprint focused on improving access to VisualEditor was supported by many people. Deryck Chan was the top translator. Special honors also go to संजीव कुमार (Sanjeev Kumar), Robby, Takot, Bachounda, Bjankuloski06 and Ата. A summary of the work achieved by the translation community has been posted here. Thank you all for your work.

VisualEditor can be made available to most non-Wikipedia projects. If your community would like to test VisualEditor, please contact product manager James Forrester or file an enhancement request in Bugzilla.

Please join the office hours on Saturday, 18 October 2014 at 18:00 UTC (daytime for the Americas; evening for Africa and Europe) and on Wednesday, 19 November at 16:00 UTC on IRC.

Give feedback on VisualEditor at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback. Subscribe or unsubscribe at Meta. To help with translations, please subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact Elitre at Meta. Thank you!

— Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

What are you reading on Wikipedia? (again)

I asked this before, and was quite happy to have gotten a response, so I figured since it has been around a year at least since having asked, that I would ask again, in case others are like me and curious- "What have you, Jimmy Wales, been reading up on Wikipedia lately?" Last time if I remember correctly the commonality of your answers was that they were topics brought up on the TV show Breaking Bad.Camelbinky (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday I had a few hours to myself and I just wanted to read, and I ended up reading a bunch of the pages linked from Unexplained disappearances. Scary stories!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Wanna write an article?

If anybody is bored, Regis Groff, Colorado State Senator from 1974 to 1994, ~~Senate President in 2008,~~ and one of the first black legislators in that state (per THIS in the Denver Post) died recently. That's a red link that needs to go blue. Carrite (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Created by User:Nikkimaria; enlarged and buffed by User:Carrite and others. [51] --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

In an outstanding example of the weakness of the bad old days abandoned doctrine of "Verifiability Not Truth" — every major bio running indicates that Regis Groff served in the Colorado State Senate from 1974 to 1994. Except I have serious doubts on this matter, dealing with the way that terms stagger (he started filling an unfinished 2 year segment of someone else's 4 year term and then won reelection repeatedly — which means a memorial in The Congressional Record stating that he was in the legislature from 1974 to 1988 strikes me as more likely than the 1994 date being repeated again and again in the obituary echo chamber, implying a mid-term resignation.) It is surprisingly hard to find lists of elected legislators in Colorado for the 1989-1994 period. Can somebody more clever than I see if he was listed as an elected member of the Colorado State Senate in those years? Carrite (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Whaddaya know, he did resign his Senate term in 1994, per Jet, May 9, 1994, pg. 46. LINK. So it is the Congressional Record that is wrong... Another illustration that there is no such thing as an unimpeachable "reliable source." Carrite (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Finding the right balance

Jimbo, I'm sure you are aware of the recent leaks of private nude images of celebrities, popularly called "The Fappening" but referred to here as the 2014 celebrity photo leaks. Wikipedia has dealt with the leaks in a very mixed way and I'm curious if you have any thoughts about how this should be addressed in the biographies of the celebrities involved. A small number of actresses are named in 2014 celebrity photo leaks but this reportedly involves dozens of celebrities.

Apparently all we know about actress Jessica Brown Findlay's "personal life" is that private nude images of her were leaked on the internet. McKayla Maroney's biography says that "allegedly underage nude images of Maroney were published" which has implications about Maroney's participation and child pornography laws. Other actresses and models with leaked images (eg Cat Deeley) seem to have escaped having imformation about leaks added to their articles, but perhaps it is only a matter of time.

Many of the images circulating as the result of these leaks are questionable at best. Although some celebrities have confirmed that the images are genuine, many have either not commented or have explicitly denied that the images are genuine. Is it sufficient that images purported to be of a celebrity are circulating? In any case, is the "leak" of private nude images an important biographical detail? Would it be appropriate to have a List of celebrities with leaked nude images? Or would Category:Fappening victims be appropriate? Jimbo, do have thoughts on how this situation should be handled? Legit Alternate Account (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Why are you using "Legit Alternate Account"?

You've asked a lot of different questions, so I'll try to address them one by one as well as make some comments on questions that are at least partly implied.

First, I think it's appropriate to have the article 2014 celebrity photo leaks - it was and remains a newsworthy event of some at least minor historical importance. The general public will be seeking a factual summary of what is known about the incident, and we should provide that. I think it likely that someone will eventually be found and convicted for this, so I doubt if the news cycle is really over.

Second, it's a bit ridiculous to have a section entitled "Personal life" with just the one fact in it for Jessica Brown Findlay. I'm not sure of the best fix for that, but as it stands it really does seem like a good example of WP:UNDUE.

Third, for McKayla Maroney, it seems to me that the sourcing is quite weak. The linked story from Fox News says that she is "reportedly" pursuing legal action after having "previously" claiming they were fake - as if it is impossible that it could be both. The story contains no unambiguous claim from her now that the images are real. The story is a bit of a muddle and apparently a rehash from other news outlets(?). I'd prefer to see higher quality sourcing that better explains the situation, if we are to cover it at all.

Fourth, my instinct is that if someone is on the (rather long) list and if there are images allegedly circulating of them, but there has been no direct coverage (other than being included in published lists) then the impact on their life story is too negligible to mention at all. This will be a complex judgment call in some cases, but I think we should err on the side of caution.

Fifth, I don't think either the proposed article or proposed category is really a good idea. The story about the incident is fine, and even mentioning the list of victims there is fine with me (though I'm open to arguments against it).

Finally, something you didn't ask but which I think is important, I think it important that we strongly avoid casually picking up on language calling this a "scandal" for the celebrities involved. It's a crime against them and virtually every serious source that I have seen has clearly acknowledged that in the vast majority of the cases (all of them that I know about!) the behavior of the celebrities in question is not itself outside of contemporary social norms and is not generally regarded by the public as scandalous or criminal behavior. (Obviously some ~~more conservative~~ people will feel that way, but I don't think reliable sources suggest at all that we should treat it that way.) I've not seen us make that error, so I only mention it for a bit of completeness.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Certainly Jimbo is right in the moral sense that this is no scandal, but legally, note that, very unfortunately, children have been prosecuted^{[citation needed]} for "sexting", using child pornography laws allegedly passed to protect children as a means of persecuting them - therefore WP:BLPCRIME applies to those cases (though these persons may not count as little-known). Wnt (talk) 03:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you need a cite for "persecuted" children. If anything, it's the type of release of private photos by ex-bf/gf and it's a tool to stop it. Note that Jennifer Lawrence considered it a sex crime to look at photos of her that she did not explicitly give permission for. Considering it to be "persecution" to prevent the release of pictures of minors is rather short sighted. Actor/Actress are special types of employees that are quite different from others. There are many employees with "regular" jobs where facebook or other posts have cost them their job when what they thought was private turned out not to be. --DHeyward (talk) 06:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@DHeyward: if you read the article on sexting that I linked, you would see several references for that point. It is also easy enough to find references on a search, e.g. [52][53][54] I can't express how infuriating it is to think of some smug prosecutor, supposedly tasked to defend children from harm, getting hacked or stolen photos from a phone conversation that was supposed to be private, then saying he was prosecuting them for their own good. Now obviously celebrities are not kids like these, and the morality of any action is determined by the doer's income, but to me such prosecutors seem a million times worse than anyone "fapping" to a stolen glance, and yet, they are very real. Wnt (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Wnt: I've read it. Police and school officials aren't omniscient. This stuff comes to their attention by way complaint or harassment. Usually when the photo/vids get distributed to a larger audience then intended. The victims (mostly female) have little recourse. Prosecutors are also hamstrung and use whatever they can to prevent widespread distribution of the photos. That happens to be CP laws. Juveniles aren't usually prosecuted for CP as non-jail alternative diversions that educate them on victimization is the usual course of action. A viral video of a 16 y/o performing a sex act that goes through her high school without her consent is pretty hard to defend as not a crime because the person who took it was a consenting partner. If CP laws are the only thing that's in the toolbox, I have not issue with using the threat of that to stop a video that could one day stop her career, end relationships, be the cause of depression or self-harm, etc, etc. Jennifer Lawrence considers her privacy violation to be a type of sex crime. It's hard to disagree with her. The same is true for teenage victims. Your first source quotes the prosecutor at the end: "Probably it's harmless when they take the pictures of each other and just share them between them, but the potential is there for there to be widespread distribution," said Chenot. "What we have here is a case where technology has gotten ahead of the laws." He charged them all with serious felonies and they plead down to taking classes. I find it hard to disagree with his logic that widespread distribution of sexually explicit photos, against the will of the person (and in the case of minors, widespread distribution at all), is not a serious crime. Jennifer Lawrence is correct and there is a computer hacking element of the crime and there is a sexual element of the crime. Some states have already outlawed "revenge porn" and these incidents seem much more akin to that than any kind of intellectual property law violation. They are sex crimes and, like rape, are done for power and control. WP should be helping LE find and prosecute these people to the extent they are able. --DHeyward (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@DHeyward: I'm having a hard time following your point. Are you saying that Maroney should be prosecuted if it were to turn out she took a "selfie"? Are you suggesting it should be treated as a scandal for her rather than a crime against her? I don't think anything that I said above should have given you the impression I was advocating subsequent propagation of private underage selfies to unauthorized third parties. (While my general advocacy of freedom of expression would ultimately extend that way, such rights are only meaningful when very fundamental and difficult free-speech reforms have already been made, such as the abolition of copyright in favor of an alternate market-based compensation mechanism, guaranteed full employment on demand including bounties to compensate when persons are subject to social discrimination, and of course a thorough liberalization on nudity and porn in general) My suggestion above was only that the claim that an underage actress voluntarily took the snapshots of herself needs (surprisingly) to be treated as a potential criminal charge that therefore requires particularly careful treatment per BLP. Wnt (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Wnt: For WP, there is no need need to mention that Maroney took a selfie at all. It is not CP to take your own picture. It is CP to distribute pictures of children. Therefore, if there is no reason to believe Maroney distributed it, there is no crime (nor is there anything to report). If she did distribute it, and it remained private, there is nothing to report. If someone else stole and distributed it, that third party can be charged with CP and we would not identify a victim of child pornography, which Maroney would be at that point. We should be extremely careful how we treat victims of CP crime, whence the reason for our BLP policy on crime and victims. If someone (anyone) is still a minor and is willfully distributing pictures of themselves, then they need the type of CP diversion programs (and victim privacy) that the prosecutor mentioned where they are taught about victimization and consequences. Same as how we don't let child prostitutes to continue being prostitutes but prosecution of girls too young to consent to sex is extremely rare. At the same time predator prosecution is very high (opposite to when everyone is legal age, where the main targets are the prostitutes). Children too young to consent are put in social programs and homes, not jail - it doesn't mean we don't intervene as a society or protect children from predators. The same is true for a number of social ills. If a girl is a victim of CP because her picture flew around the internet, we don't publish it. --DHeyward (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why we're even arguing this, but I find your legal analysis very unpersuasive, since it would suggest that a pedophile sports coach who takes naked pictures of kids on his team in the shower, but only uploads them to "the cloud", would face no charges. Wnt (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Uh no, it doesn't. Discovery is a required process for charging. You seem to have a very skewed view of how law enforcement works. Lack of discovery doesn't make it legal. Nor does discretion make it legal. --DHeyward (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Jennifer Lawrence

I guess a lot of people have seen reports about leaked nude images of Jennifer Lawrence appearing on her Wikipedia biography. I'm not sure what could have been done to stop this, but I would expect to see the same thing happen to other female celebrities who have had their photos leaked. I haven't seen a discussion of this on any other forum here, but it might be helpful to come up with some ideas to prevent a recurrence before the next incident. Legit Alternate Account (talk) 04:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Many have been proposed like only allowing established editors make changes to BLPs. Kind of ironic that "Legit Alternate Account" would be having angst when one of the solutions is preventing alternate accounts, short term accounts or IPs from editing BLPs or uploading photos. --DHeyward (talk) 06:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

All good suggestions as they relate to BLPs, but it wouldn't have worked in this case. As I understand it, here's how it was done:

1) Create brand new account on Commons ([55])

2) Wait 4 days until account is auto-confirmed

3) Replace existing Commons image used in article with new image ([56])

4) Nude image of Jennifer Lawrence automatically appears in article

No edits were needed here, so no restrictions or article protections would have helped. Why a brand new user would be allowed to overwrite existing images on Commons is a bit of a mystery to me, but someone should probably put a stop to that practice. Is there anything we can do here to prevent this from happening again? Legit Alternate Account (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It was a neat trick, because it sidestepped all of the current measures that would have stopped the image from appearing on Wikipedia. Only additional code on the Wikipedia site would prevent a stunt like this. It is estimated that around 100 people were hacked on iCloud, but this could happen in any article where the infobox image was switched. This problem needs to be looked into closely. (BTW, I have never heard of some of the celebrities who were hacked on iCloud. Does this mean that I need to get out less?)--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)