User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 230

Archive 225

←

Archive 228

Archive 229

Archive 230

Archive 231

Archive 232

→

Archive 235

Christina Sommers: No mention of Sarah Jeong's tweets on her Wikipedia page. Why?

Judging by this tweet [1], it looks to the outside observer as if Wikipedia is somewhat broken. I know the exquisitely-worded excuses to follow, along with reams of lawyer-talk, will leave me looking like a fool for criticizing WP. But I have to wonder along with Ms Sommers... how does one explain this? People are saying that Wikipedia seems to have a left-leaning bias, which if true, violates the core principle. petrarchan47คุก 22:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

You mean Sarah Jeong, if you want to diatribe best to have your facts straight. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I meant Sarah Jeong and spelled her name correctly; what facts do I have incorrect? petrarchan47คุก 21:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Petrarchan47, I redacted some of your material per WP:BLP. You can't say or link to stuff like that here. I have no knowledge of or opinion on the matter, but you need to find a way to make your point without slandering anyone, thanks. Herostratus (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Hero, I don't see anything redacted. Can you explain? petrarchan47คุก 21:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

One of the better snippets of text on the talk page includes a section that 'The New York Times' issued a comment noting that she was a target of frequent online harassment and that the tweets were Jeong responding by "imitating her accusers." To be clear, my instinct is always to let the subject have his or her say, which is to say, to reproduce her postings. However, to reproduce one side of a heated interchange with a harasser, taken out of context ... well, that's how propagandists go after people for old Twitter postings in what passes for news media, but it doesn't pass the sniff test for balanced encyclopedic content. Either we have to reproduce a core chunk of the main interchange leading off with the postings of whoever started this, which would probably devote most of our article to random Twitting, or we can have it as it seems to be now with enough mention of this teapot tempest that people know what's going on, though certainly there are bits like the text I quote above that didn't make it in. I don't suggest totally omitting the incident, and I see one editor tried to take it that far. I'll admit some bias in that I'm fed up with all the red and blue SJWs who have gone after this lady and Roseanne Barr and the chief communications officer at Netflix who thought he could say what other people at a meeting were saying [2] and so many others over hyper-correctness and brand-new-minted racist and/or anti-racist rules. Wnt (talk) 11:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

No one has suggested her defense and the "out of context" claims be omitted, in fact I believe they are in the article now (whilst the tweets themselves are not). I am arguing that our article should reflect mainstream sources. It does not. Frankly, it reads like someone is being paid to perform reputation management here on Wikipedia. Does that seem an outrageous idea? Regardless, people are calling bullshit on this, with articles being written even today about the shoddy coverage of this story on WP. petrarchan47คุก 19:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It can be difficult to find sources to refute claims. For example, as I understand it, Albert Einstein thought quantum physics was wrong, not because of experimental results, but because people had confused quantum mathematical models as if being the same as reality, such as Newtonian mechanics math not predicting the curvature of starlight passing near the sun during the 1919 solar eclipse, but it can be difficult to find sources that support specific ideas. Today we know the quantum theory has failed to explain the grand structure of the universe, although it seems to work well at ultra-microscopic levels. Similarly, WP does not have enough explanation of race baiting, reverse racism, the race card, nor inverse racism, plus wp:Racial policies to adequately deter claims of "racist" in article text. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Wikid77: do you think language would be clearer if people used "breed" instead of "race" for people? Race seems to imply speciation or something near it, but human genetic diversity is more similar to feline genetic diversity, in that the underlying anatomy and biochemistry is almost identical, while color and minor variation in physical features are almost all incidental. "Half-breed" is already a slur for mulatto, which even as a formal term can be considered a slur. If you want to characterize the humans and their organizational groups and forms correctly, does precise language help more than it hurts with unfamiliarity?

I appreciate the way Jeong called out Andrew Sullivan's racism.[3] 96.78.143.225 (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Petrarchan47: As you know, there's a discussion on the talk page seeking consensus on what the article should say. Wikipedia is not a breaking news site, and there's no rush. It's surely better to wait for (often sensational) headlines to die down and work out balanced coverage in line with WP:DUE, isn't it? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The feet dragging over this, with what looks to many like white-washing, especially when compared with similar stories, is making headlines. That was my only point here. You can go on Twitter and search for "Wikipedia", perhaps include "Sarah Jeong" in the search, and you will see that the public has lost trust in this site, with the most popular retort being "I'll never donate again". I am bringing this to your attention in case changes should be made. People are claiming WP has a left-leaning bias. The tweet I originally quoted to show you all this, has 10,000 "likes" and 5,000 retweets, with literally no one in the 450 replies defending Wikipedia. I came here not to troll you all but to alert you. The defenses are beautiful, but you're loosing readers/donors all the same. petrarchan47คุก 19:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Ohhhh,I get it. Apparently this person Jeong was just hired by the NY Times, and she's some kind of on-the-left person and a bunch of on-the-right people don't like that, I gather. Rather than starting their own newspaper or something they're just whining; they dug up some old tweets or stuff from years ago and tried/are trying to make shitstorm. Oh well... it's the times.

I mean by all means readers who don't like how the Wikipedia handles stuff like this are indeed allowed to "never donate again" and also get their information from other publications, of which there are many. But... "the public has lost trust in this site" isn't a true statement. Since it's not a true statement, it's not a good basis for beginning a discussion, so I personally don't see a useful way forward here, altho Jimbo might feel differently. I think the article talk page is better venue for this.

The larger question, removed from partisan considerations is "Look, lot of people tweet now, and digging up old tweets and using them against one's enemies and (if you're lucky) getting some notice in the papers is a thing now. How should the Wikipedia approach and deal with this relatively new phenomena in our WP:BLP environment?" is a legit question. IMO it needs to be raised in a general, non-partisan, and non-emotional way, if you want a fruitful discussion. Herostratus (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

And if someone claims that we are being partisan, (which does happen sometimes but not as often as many people think), I would like to see some evidence such as diffs and statistics showing how we treated people from various political camps who tweeted objectionable things -- and I mean real objectionable things, not just political viewpoints that the person making the list objects to. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The problem here isn't so much the message as the medium. Twitter is a cesspool with no official record we can access. There's no way to tell what the conversation was or how long it lasted, minutes or days, and above all, there's no way to tell how many provocative posts have been deleted or are being hidden from us. Hell, I haven't even gotten to the meat of the issue of whether Twitter shadowbans on purpose or just as a "glitch". I mean, if I had a paragraph I could copy out of a transcript that had a heckler-and-speaker exchange, I'd love to just post it. The reader can make his own calls. But with this, any snapshot I try to assemble is just a delusion. It's the perfect medium for the post-factual world where the truth is whatever somebody powerful says it is. Wnt (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

The Atlantic article is kind of on track, but it misses the point: Wikipedia is a vestige of the real Internet, the thing that was built not by corporations but by people interested in sharing data. If a company, any company, took over this site, then it would be as disreputable as everything else the same day. So long as we have citizens free to edit, low-Gini coefficient forums, and at least some resistance toward administrative infiltration by big tech companies and PR reputation management, Wikipedia will remain an "anomaly" in a world that assumes everyone is bought and every view is paid for. Wnt (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Just did another advanced google search and got back slightly different results this time: "wikipedia is a liberal" got back 54 results, "wikipedia is a conservative" got back just 3 results. Not sure if this means anything but just yesterday liberal got 45 results and conservative got just 2. Have a question for Wnt, what did you mean exactly by "low-Gini coefficient forums"? Also have to add my thoughts to what a user said above about being in a "de facto state of war with Russia after her attacks". So I guess when the U.S. meddles in countries across the globe (including Russia) we are initiating "de facto war" against them? It really makes me laugh (actually it is disgusting and not funny) the massive hypocrisy this rotten country displays not just in how it treats it's own citizens (highest level of incarceration in the world by far including China with 1.4 billion people, and horrible income inequality especially since the mid 90s) but how it treats other nations. Cloune (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Cloune: This is one of my ideas. The Gini coefficient is a mathematical function used to estimate inequality in a society. You can see a graphical and mathematical definition in the article. You can use the same definition on a forum like this one. On this talk page, the number of people who at least see the average post by you or I or even Jimbo Wales is almost the same. So if you plot the Lorenz curve it is going to look almost like a diagonal line and the coefficient will be very close to 0. That is the way that traditional free forums like BBSes and Usenet and many small discussion pages online have worked. Some make compromises, e.g. admin sticky notes, but the effect remains small. By contrast, if you look at a forum like Twitter, you can take millions and millions of people at the bottom and literally no one reads what they post and their Lorenz curve is going to go straight to the right along the X axis. Eventually you get into a leaderboard and there's a few people with millions each. So if you evaluate the number it will be very close to 1. My position is that inequality in a forum ruins the forum in more or less exactly the same way as inequality in the wealth of a society ruins the society -- by denying the chance of so many to contribute meaningful direction -- and so we can use the same number to measure both. Wnt (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I have an honest question for Jimbo Wales. Do you ever read about criticism of Wikipedia and how it functions? The past week there has been a lot in the news media (and also social media) about this Sarah Jeong article and how it is being controlled by liberal biased users and admins and slanted in a certain direction? Does it bother you at all as the creator of this website that it has gained a large reputation (especially over the past few years) as a liberal/left-wing biased website instead of what it should be - a neutral encyclopedia for human knowledge? Cloune (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

If your newsfeed is full of that, well... that is your newsfeed. Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Aye, in the real world, >99.99% of the world's population have never heard of Sarah Jeong. Incidentally, who believes any of those Twatterati who are throwing their toys out of the pram and "never contributing to Wikipedia again" have ever contributed in the first place? Seems a bit odd that they'd be contributing to a well known purveyor of left-wing opinions, doesn't it? Black Kite (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know, but from this thread it seems people weren't aware of the left-leaning bias. Here are a few responses to the banning of some bloke called Peter Hitchens:

"I made the mistake of donating to Wikipedia the other day. I shall not repeat." https://twitter.com/cheethamjakemax/status/1027483969045049345

"I want the $15 back that I donated to that Deep State propaganda site." https://twitter.com/HeadlineJuice/status/1027257924756885506

"Same here. They'll never get another penny from me." https://twitter.com/michael53021960/status/1027258764301422592

It really does seem as if people are beginning to think that Wikipedia might not be truly unbiased as it claims. petrarchan47คุก 21:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't immediately notice bias in Peter Hitchens, and a search for the name indicates he is mentioned in I think more than a hundred articles; for example, he and his brother are used as examples in sibling rivalry. The block, indefinite, did happen, to User:Clockback, who deserves a ping since this has been mentioned. [4] It appears that at AN he went from "blocked" to "community blocked" based on a 3rd party request for unblock, which was said to be procedurally invalid by at least one person, which should raise some eyebrows. [5] The fact that the guy who blocked him, though he said he didn't know it was Peter Hitchens at the time, later said he wished the man's brother (a liberal commentator) was here instead, during the block discussion, does not look good either. [6] That said, the degree of editorializing in cited edits, though normal in modern "news", is too much bias and guesswork by Wikipedia standards.

The general rule is that Wikipedia is not biased, but editors are biased. And proving editors are biased is a tough one, because the people who decide if they are biased ... are biased. Wikipedia still needs a random jury system, now as much as ever, to reduce some of the appearance of systematic bias. It is very hard to prove there is any, and at least as hard to prove there is not. Wnt (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Your second Twitter account thinks that the FBI are monitoring his brainwaves, as well! Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Petrarchan47, I see the ABC News reference includes: "Soon after, mainly conservative social media took issue with the tweets, which seem to date to 2013 and 2014, and include statements like "Oh man, it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men." Is that the type of stuff you think should be in Wikipedia? The great thing about being volunteers is we don't have to be phony or include stupid and silly crap that commercial media may include for their more shallow or overly sensitive customers simply because they are customers...we don't have to do that and if you or anybody else doesn't like it, tough shit. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

If enough people talk about it, we do gotta cover it. The guy who mows the schoolhouse lawn doesn't get to detour around a dog turd, and Wikipedia doesn't get to avoid covering nasty and shallow criticisms if that is truly in the landscape of reliable sources that we are "mowing" for our facts. The goal for a good lawnmower man is to keep the turd neatly among the lawn trimmings he's collecting and not be seen wearing it personally as he makes the remainder of his rounds. That said, we don't have to cover anything until there are neutral sources talking about it and actually "presenting as true" the conclusions they make. Even as much weasel wording as we see above may be enough to keep it out -- if a RS says "[the postings] seem to date to 2013 and 2014", then we cannot use that as a source for "in 2013 and 2014, she posted..." Under better circumstances you might fix that up by going to the primary ... to my surprise, here it is. But does anyone know how to figure out what that's in response to? You could also just search the phrase and look for weasel-free sources - [7] and [8] and [9] came up, before I called it. I hadn't thought it would be so, but from this, it looks like we're gonna need to cover this. At this point, the best way for those sympathetic to the writer to blunt the corrosive impact of this sort of mindless clickbait is to try to fill in some of the real (hard) biography, publications, etc. Collect enough clean trimmings in the lawnmower bag and you'll almost forget what was in it before. Wnt (talk) 13:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but don't forget the spirit and letter of WP:BLP. We do hold back to some extent on presenting criticism, and when we do we try to make sure that we're not missing any exculpatory context and counterpoints. I believe (and hope) that we do this across the political spectrum mostly. For instance Mark Steyn, a right-wing pundit whom I don't like... naturally a lot of other people don't either, and I have defended the integrity of that article (altho looking at it now it might need another trim). I suggest that left-wing editors so inclined adopt a right-wing politician or pundit and defend their article, it's a bracing exercise.

And anyway, so but here's the thing. Many our editors are American, and in the American context, you have the conservative Republican Party and the liberal Democratic Party. Americans are split roughly 50-50 between these parties. Essentially all liberals are Democrats and most Democrats are liberals, and basically all conservatives are Republicans and practically all Republicans are conservatives. There're some socialists and libertarians etc. but not many. (All this is painting with very broad strokes, but you get the idea.)

Well I read where Ipsos (a French research firm that is well regarded I think) determined here that close to half (43% actually) of Republicans (meaning, broadly, of conservatives) agree with the proposition "the president should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior". Not Congress, mind you -- the president alone.

(I don't know what is in people's head regarding the term "bad behavior", but venues such as World Socialist Web Site and Mother Jones (magazine) are not generally on people's radar here -- the public conversation, which the president has been pushing very vigorously, has been about CNN (for rough British equivalent, think BBC or Reuters), the New York Times, and so on. These are the news outlets that American conservatives are are thinking of when this question arises, I'd warrant.)

So I mean people who agree with the proposition "the president should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior"... are they going to be really all that enthusiastic about editing an Enlightenment publication like the Wikipedia? Hard to see why. If you think CNN and the NY Times should be shut down, how can you accept them as reliable NPOV sources? So, I mean fine, would you not expect conservatives to be less represented here? I mean there is Conservapedia, and if it's true that people are fleeing the Wikipedia in droves, why not go edit there? Or just get your current information from Alex Jones or whomever, and confine your Wikipedia reading to non-political information? So I don't really see the problem. Herostratus (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I am convinced that reading Wikipedia improves brain functionality as well as provides continually evolving education and critical thinking abilities for Wikipedia's readers because the facts contained within our articles often conflict with government, all governments', and commercial propaganda and bad science as well as false assumptions that readers have been exposed to and inaccurate preconceived notions the reader may have acquired from a vast quantity of lousy sources. Thus, the conflict forces the reader to exercise his/her mental capacities and exercise makes the minds stronger and sharper. My only uncertainty is whether there are entities which have a vested interest in preventing large numbers of this earth's people from having free access to such improved brain functions and education. If there are such entities, then I guess there will be a constant battle/war ahead for projects such as Wikipedia, and if there are not, then the path ahead should be easy. I am uncertain, but somehow I don't feel as though the path ahead will be easy. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

What to call the Russians attacking the United States and Wikipedias

More press: Wikipedia, the Last Bastion of Shared Reality. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Isn't coloring the Wikipedia logo yellow and then attributing it to The Atlanic a copyright violation? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. That is quite amusing (hope it's not true:)) Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Well but it is pretty upbeat actually. I'm not too worried about trolls and partisans, altho it's a constant effort to deal with them. I personally am worried about the Russians tho. On Reddit, there are many trolls and bots (and admins) that are almost surely Russians. They're there to bend the narrative, and remember -- they don't care mainly about supporting liberals or conservatives or whatever, and they really don't care about presenting Russia's side of anything. They're there mainly to cause dissension. We've seen this on Facebook also, where Russians will take any side, or even both sides of a contentious issue.

As the article says, "Wikipedia’s grip on [the] center has tightened. In the current conspiracy-obsessed world, where [there is] deep polarization, Wikipedia’s importance is recognized." The Russians are aware that we are one of the Western world's most consulted websites. If damaging us is not on the Russian radar, I'd be very surprised, altho they may not be assigning significant resources to that.

Again, they'd have some interest in affecting content, but primarily in degrading process I think. Every dispute is doing the devil's work. I dunno if the Russians have people here doing that, but if they don't it wouldn't be for lack of desire, it'd be for lack of resources and because our defenses are too strong.

I don't have an action item here. Maybe it's not a problem. Maybe it will never be a problem. But it's something to be aware of, maybe.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs) 02:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

+1. This has been on my mind today. Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I just googled "wikipedia is a liberal" and "wikipedia is a conservative". Not sure if this means anything but I got back 2 results for conservative and 45 results for liberal. Cloune (talk) 07:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Could we avoid referring to "the Russians" in this way? Wikipedia is global community that includes many Russian contributors and Russian-language projects. Could we also stop assuming that both criticism and trolling comes from Russians? --MarioGom (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Right, you are entirely correct, "The Russians" is both inaccurate and insulting, and I will try to not do that anymore. In explanation, it's just... IMO the United States is in a de facto state of war with Russia after her attacks, and on Dec 8 1941 we went around saying "The Japanese have attacked Pearl Harbor!" not "Some Japanese have attacked Pearl Harbor!". The latter would have been better and kinder and more accurate (many Japanese opposed the war of course), but in wartime these distinctions tend to get lost... Herostratus (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure. And in this "war" of yours, English Wikipedia is not partisan to the US side. --MarioGom (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Well I mean procedurally we are (and I was speaking of procedural issues above). As to content, that's different, because... it's like... it's like, suppose we had an article which said "Some people think facts are determined by reports of replicable observable phenomena by good sources, and some people think facts are determined by what the Pope says" or something. We're not going to add "...and we think you should ignore those people" in the article text. Let the reader decide what "side" she wants to be on of that question, if any.

However, when writing the encyclopedia we are not going to give much shrift to arguments along the lines of "The Pope himself says this is true, and that's all the ref you need" on the grounds of "not taking sides". Sure we are going to take a side. "What the Pope says is true must be true" is, broadly, a conservative position (small-c and in the wider sense), while "What's true is what the testable evidence of our senses (or the senses of a reliable reporter), perceived without fear or favor, tells us is true" is, broadly, a liberal position (small-l, in the wider sense). So procedurally we are "liberal" since we are an Enlightenment institution, like all proper general encyclopedias. And we're fiercely partisan on that level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs)

@MarioGom: what is your prefered term for the Russians such as those affiliated with the Putin administration, the Duma, and St. Petersberg's Internet Research Agency who have been trying to -- and to a large extent succeeding in -- taking over the United States government, and who have already eliminated any mention of cannabis smoking techniques from the Russian Wikipedia by police actions against Russian Wikipedia administrators?[10] 96.78.143.225 (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@96.78.143.225: If they are affiliated with the Internet Research Agency, then something like "Internet Research Agency", if they are any other kind of agents from the government, then something like "Russian Government agents", but be prepared to discuss that with reliable sources at hand. --MarioGom (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@MarioGom: Do you have any objection to using the term "Russian government" or "Russian leadership" in those contexts?[11] What term could describe the intent of a despotic dictatorship without implicating the people living in the dictator's country? I agree it is wrong is it to talk about the Russian people in general as complicit[12] but certainly not the official Russian state media.[13] 96.78.143.225 (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@96.78.143.225: As far as I see, the actors involved in that story are the Russian and US governments. Of course I do not have any objection to say "Russian government" when talking about the Russian government. Other than that, I'm not even answering your second question since it is completely beyond the point. Wikipedia is neither a forum or a soapbox. --MarioGom (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@MarioGom: I agree "Russian agents" is probably best, but I would like to see your source that, "we should stop assuming both criticism and trolling comes from Russians." The sources above establish that beyond any shadow of a doubt. What sources support any alternatives? 96.78.143.225 (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Is Craig Unger a reliable source for his claim that Trump was compromised by a Russian government 'honey trap' operation in 1987? 50.197.184.177 (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah on consideration I take back what I said. "Russia" or "the Russians" is fine. We're talking about the Russian government (and not just some rogue agency either -- get real). "The British announced a strong-pound policy today" or "Britain announced a strong-pound policy today"... well what does that mean? Did the actual geographical island of Great Britain somehow gain sentience and voice and make this announcement? Or maybe the entire population of the UK suddenly turned as one and shouted to the sky that there would be a strong-pound policy? Well of course not -- everybody understands that "the British government" is meant in these sort of contexts. Everybody.

Sometimes people will say "the British government" (this may be BBC stylebook, not sure) and sometimes "the British Ministry of Finance" is need for precision, or just used anyway. But unless it's necessary its just extra verbiage.

If you're a Russian and you don't want to be included in this, well, the world isn't fair. We all have to live with this. "The Americans are causing global market meltdown with their tariffs" or whatever. Everybody gets that these things don't mean that I personally or that every single person in America is causing a global market meltdown. I'm not getting pulled over by the cops for causing a global market meltdown. So I mean at some level you have to shrug this stuff off. Don't worry about it.

But... if you want newspapers, books, TV, websites, and just normal people in conversation to always or mostly say "The Italian government announced..." rather than just "Italy announced...", start a grassroots movement or something and maybe you can change that. Then you can come back and say "Don't say 'the Russians', because nobody else does that". That'd be reasonable. Herostratus (talk) 04:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Israeli team to bias Wikipedia?

I just ran across this article in MintPress News, which says that the Israelis pay a "team" to make and alter Wikipedia articles. To be sure, there is at least one aspect of the article that raises my suspicions, namely the claim that Israeli students are getting paid $400 an hour to post online comments [clarified from their source, see below], though I wasn't sure if this was part of that. But having just run across a fairly persuasive indication that Act.IL is being used to promote comments against Jeremy Corbyn [14][15], I can't dismiss the claim out of hand. Is there any way to catch this network out from our end? (I wonder how many countries don't have a Wikipedia team by now...) Wnt (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh come on, when you see such stupid amounts being claimed, like $400 per hour for students, it's obvious bullshit. Hell, the most I've ever been accused of being paid was $400 per month! For being either pro or anti Hindu - I can't remember which now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The article reads like an Alex Jones style conspiracy theory. E.g. ... [A]nd take over Wikipedia administrative structures to ensure these changes go either undetected or unchallenged - Oh yeah, we elect all sorts of IDF soldiers into the admin corps. Sigh. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Extremely dubious source.[16] --Guy Macon (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

It also ticked my conspiracy theory detector. Maybe we'll now be accused of being in that group for denying the allegations... —PaleoNeonate – 19:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Re:"I wonder how many countries don't have a Wikipedia team by now..." I don't have any comment on Israeli editing here. But I don't think we should dismiss the idea that several governments or closely allied groups are editing Wikipedia for political advantage with group members being paid.

For example, I've long thought that Russian groups were editing Wikipedia and probably using paid editors to do so. Given all the fake news in the 2016 election, I don't see any reasons that they wouldn't want to. Nor do I see any mechanisms in place that would stop them from contributing to Wikipedia if they wanted to. Please see our article on Trolls from Olgino The problem, of course, is whether we can separate out folks paid by the government from folks who are simply patriotic and have listened to too much state propaganda. My belief that there is Russian government editing of Wikipedia cannot be 100% proven (how could that ever happen?), but comes about from my knowledge of how Wikipedia works (I've been here for over 10 years), running into some fairly bizarre articles like International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, seeing slow but systematic changes made to articles like Assassination of Boris Nemtsov, and my knowledge of the Russian technique of kompromat. I do think that such groups can get some of their members !voted in as admins. I'm thinking of a very influential former Commons admin, and off-and-on EnWiki admin, who at one point seemed to be using this page as an experiment in how far can you push the Wikipedia governance system before they actually do anything about it.

How many countries or intelligence services have editing groups like this? Note that I'm not talking about Bell Pottinger here, even if such a group can affect a government the size of South Africa. The obvious candidates are Russia, China, and perhaps the US. I'd be surprised if the total for organized, professional groups was over ten, but for unorganized, unprofessional groups representing factions within government - that's anybody's guess.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

My apologies for seizing on a misleading detail in my first comment. What they said in the article was Under this program, Israeli students are paid $2,000 to work five hours per week to “lead the battle against hostile websites.” I divided to $400 an hour, but actually, their source (The Electronic Intifada) makes it clearer: [17] The student will do the activities in the comfort of his home, where every week he will be obligated to about 5 hours of activities for a period of one calendar year (not academic year). Students will be paid a total of NIS 7,500 [$2,000] to perform the tasks of the project, at least 5 hours weekly for a total of 240 hours of activities under the project umbrella. So despite some lack of clarity, they did source their article (though not super neutrally) and the source works out to a maximum of $8.33 per hour (2000 / 240 hours). Now yes, conspiracy theory detectors remain ticked ... the problem being, the world seems to be chock full of conspiracies nowadays. Compared to what the FBI says about Trump, or Trump says about the FBI, this is pretty tame. Wnt (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The article gives one very specific allegation: A course organizer explained that the use of the word “occupied” in Wikipedia entries “was just the kind of problem she hoped a new team of editors could help fix.” With that clue, we should be able to reach some kind of starting point. (I tried Wikiblame [18] but on both Israel and Palestine it just gets into an infinite loop between revisions 1 and 2) Anyone have a better idea? Wnt (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Use the old "half interval search method" to search halfway above/below middle revision, such as list history with "&limit=4096" to check halfway 12 times as 2^12=4096 revisions, 13x to search 8,192 revisions to see when text appeared or disappeared from a page. Not sure if the Blame tool is broken lately. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

(aside) Supposedly the 50% search method (look in the middle - is it above or below?) is suboptimal under common conditions. Rather a 33% (or 67%) method is close to optimal (go a third of the way in from either end - is it above or below?). If I remember correctly 38% is the very best, but not much better than 33%. Don't ask me for a proof though. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I find that a compromise between the middle time and the middle edit works well. It would be interesting to run a program that samples a few thousand Wikipedia pages and determines the optimal point for our environment. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, admittedly, when I tried the tool I was hoping for something a lot more like a magic carpet. Note that Israel and Palestine do use the O-word many times, in current revisions. The implication I'd take from that is that if Israel paid some editors to try to take it out, they were quickly shouted down. I don't know if there's any tool that can find if some editors took the word out briefly, somewhere in the vast edit history. Wnt (talk) 04:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

From monitoring noticeboards I have occasionally noticed edit wars regarding occupation. As I recall an IP or throw-away account turns up and starts removing all such phrases that might indicate some problem with regard to Israel's position, and established editors then get reported when they try to combat the disruption. Johnuniq (talk) 05:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I started doing some searches. The first I came up with was kind of meh [19] - "occupied" was changed to "conquered", but judging by the number of search hits that come up about other occupied areas, I wasn't sure it was unexpected to find something like this. But this one sounds like a whole other kind of crazy. It's not explicitly about use of the word "occupation" though -- rather, Mobile, Alabama was protected for a year over whether its sister city, an Israeli settlement on the West Bank, was in "Israel". (this surely does not change my opinion about whether "sister cities" belong in top-level articles about cities...) That was before the rape and death threats started. Anyway, I didn't complete one search of those noticeboard archives, and there are a lot of permutations to go through, and there's a whole WP:ARBPIA I know nothing about ... what admins do surely involves a lot of dull work to figure anything out. Wnt (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Yet Another Call For Jimbo To Support Someone's Political Position

Jimbo, I'd be interested to know your thoughts on [20]. 99.165.28.65 (talk) 03:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Petition: Formally recognize AntiFa as a terrorist organization (368,423 signature so far). [ petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/formally-recognize-antifa-terrorist-organization-0 ] --Guy Macon (talk) 05:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

And as a break from the dueling political screeching, here is a more nuanced view: [21] --Guy Macon (talk) 05:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah!... No. Odd how the wingnuts are so keen to characterise people they don't like as terrorists and so steadfastly resistant to recognising mass shootings by deranged white supremacists as acts of terrorism. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Reminds me of all the wingnuts trying to characterize people as alt-right or far-right and insist the alternative does not exist. PackMecEng (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

First, that petition is over a year old. It's already received an official response, and that response was, I paraphrase, "we don't have a mechanism in place by which to formally recognize domestic terrorist organizations". The problem with labelling Antifa or the Alt-Right as terrorist organizations is that they aren't organizations. They're loose collections of individuals without a leader or command structure (hierarchy). The most action that can be taken against them, is that individual members can be prosecuted when they commit a crime (e.g. looting, assault, rioting, etc, etc). Mr rnddude (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Your claim that "loose collections of individuals without a leader or command structure (hierarchy)" cannot be terrorist organizations appears to be wrong.

"An example of a market structure is the Earth Liberation Front (ELF). The ELF lacks any formal leadership and is highly decentralized. A prominent all-channel group is the Weather Underground. These types of groups are highly inter-netted and maintain a largely flattened hierarchy. The two more hierarchical group structures are hub and spoke and bureaucracy. A typical example of the former is al-Qaeda – there is a clear leadership but it typically lacks centralized control and instead relies more on local commanders. Finally, bureaucratic groups are best compared to military organizations, highly structured and specialized. A classic bureaucratic group is the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) but this structure is typified by many other ethno-nationalist groups." Source: Organizational Structure and the Effects of Targeting Terrorist Leadership

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Really? That happens? I have never seen it. Obviously everyone recognises the difference between being fascist and being anti-fascist, and which is the only correct one of the tow, right? Guy (Help!) 17:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Of course everyone recognizes the differences but, "and which is the only correct one of the tow" is the problem. That has nothing to do with Wikipedia and is the kind of talk POV pushers use. PackMecEng (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes, let's be sure to beware of the dangerous POV that fascism is bad. FFS. --JBL (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Found the activist! ^^ PackMecEng (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll just remind folks that calls to violence are nothing new in American history. A couple of examples:

"Gentlemen may cry peace, peace- but there is no peace! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why should we idle here?...I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry

A second example is John Brown (abolitionist) who felt that slaveholders were already at war with people they held as slaves, beating them or even killing them at will. He felt that this justified seizing the Federal Arsenal at Harpers Ferry and trying to distribute the arms to the slaves.

Both of these calls to arms are commonly cited as leading to war. As a pacifist, I'd like to think that I'd be able to resist these calls to violence, but it would have been difficult. I do think that John Brown had the better argument. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

We should remember that Wikipedia, done right, is the far extreme from all the fanatics that people want to oppose above. White supremacists want to do what? Spread misinformation and disinformation about other races, and talk people into unreasonable overreactions to mythical problems. (other bigots aren't much different, though they seem better at what they do) Antifa wants to do what? Prevent white racists from having their opinions heard. And for everyone who wants to lie, and censor, and stir up trouble, and drive people to establish Truth by Violence, no matter what his point of view -- there is Wikipedia, striving to bring together the known facts from four corners of the world to sandblast away the fanciful razor edges of the war chariots of their deception. No matter who you are or what you believe, there are inconvenient facts out there waiting for you - and it's every Wikipedian's job to gather them up and bring them where they need to be. Wnt (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

(...Slow clap...) --Guy Macon (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. Some people don't appear to realise that while we might balance what Trump says vs. what Hillary says, we absolutely no not balance what Trump says against objective fact. Much of what he says is objectively false, and that is how we're going to say it. We have the same misunderstanding with fans of homeopathy and creationism, of course. Guy (Help!) 17:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

As Sean Spicer said with surprising honesty, "Sometimes we disagree with the facts." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Questions about search suggestions

Since you're the founder of Wikipedia, I would like to get something straight by asking you a question. How are search suggestions arranged as you type in letters and other symbols? And what kind of algorithm is used to determine how the search suggestions get ordered? Classicalfan626 (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

This is one of the best "general interest" questions I've seen on this page. I doubt Jimmy will be up-to-date on the technical workings, but I hope some tech at the WMF stops by and gives an answer.

I noticed a change in the way the search box gives suggestions as you type about 3 months ago. It no longer sticks to alphabetical order and includes talk pages. I don't know when it switched from alpha order - that may have been years ago. But my guesses to your question are:

• "the old system" - suggestions were purely alphabetical for articles as you typed
• the current system - includes more than just articles, probably based on some ranking of page popularity.
• probably not - it's possible that the search is somehow based on your individual interests and search history. But this would be incredibly difficult and would likely conflict with our rules on gathering user data.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Smallbones - You know, I don't think it's all a matter of page popularity. For instance, when keyword "The F" is typed into Wikipedia's search engine, The Four Seasons (band) is listed two places ahead of The Fairly OddParents, meanwhile the Fairly OddParents page has more watchers and a larger number of edits per month. Plus, The Fairly OddParents is a fairly recent animated series, while The Four Seasons is an aged rock band that has been in the history books for a while. Classicalfan626 (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know the answer, but when I just tried searching for "The F" the 1st 3 choices were The Football Association (top), The Flintstones and The Fairly OddParents, with no The Four Seasons (band) anywhere to be found. Perhaps the popularity ranking is updated every hour or so, based on most recent searches. (Somebody may want to check out this hypothesis).Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Smallbones - Wow! That's odd! I just typed in "The F" again on my PC, and according to the list over there, The Four Seasons (band) holds 7th place and The Fairly OddParents holds 9th. I swear to God that's what I saw, though I do believe you. Perhaps it all depends on a number of factors, including what IP address is used to explore Wikipedia before a search. What are your thoughts? Classicalfan626 (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Note that while The Four Seasons (band) has fewer edits and watchers than The Fairly OddParents, they get a similar number of page views (around 50-60,000 per month each, with a perhaps unexpected amount of variability). Currently The Four Seasons is slightly ahead. It makes sense that the search box would be weighted toward page views rather than editorial activity. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Most likely something like "The Football Association" is boosted higher because there is a redirect The FA. I highly doubt that watchers or edits are taken into account by the weighting algo for the match ranking, page length is a much more likely boostfactor i think. Possibly matches on typos. Search implementation is Elasticsearch (https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch code), wiki specific logic by Extension:CirrusSearch (code, tickets, config docs, default config) Production config: part 1, part 2. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry to report that I have absolutely no idea!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The search engine here sucks, and is a tremendous waste of time, especially for searching archives. The order of results is random as far as I can tell and there is no way to sort by date or the like. The search engine is described here for anybody who wants to get in the weeds. You can peruse this search result at the village pump and find lots of people complaining (and you can experience first hand the randomness - I have posted a few times there about the search engine, but it would take me forever to find those specific posts) Jytdog (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Saying "the order of results is random" might seem like a fun way of making a jab at the search system, but really it's quite inconsiderate and insulting to the people that work on the search system, as well as being obviously untrue, so please don't do that. In terms of the system, I don't think there's anyone who'd say there's no room for improvements in the search system, but considering the search team has four software engineers, compared to the thousands of software engineers that contemporary search engines have, I think our search system holds up fairly well. There's weekly status updates from the Search team going back over two years if you want to see what improvements have been made. Regarding sorting, you're correct that there's no way to sort by date in the strict sense, but there is a prefer-recent keyword you can use that's in the documentation, along with a lot of other keywords that let you customise the search result rankings. --Deskana (WMF) (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Wow, Deskana (WMF), that prefer-recent keyword is very cool. thank you :) I put in peter,fbi prefer-recent:1-7(days) and Strzok popped right up. That is a very cool hint..thanks again. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nocturnalnow: I'm glad it's useful! --Deskana (WMF) (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I made no statement about why it sucks. But it is absolutely sucks. And don't ever misquote me again. Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Search suggestions

I have long wondered just how Wikipedia's search bar suggestions algorithm works. The search terms it recommends don't typically seem to be the most popular search terms, I would think; for instance, typing in "User talk:" here on en.wiki currently returns User talk:Krich as the top suggestion, even though Krich hasn't edited in over 11 years! I doubt that Krich is the user whose user talk page en.wiki users are most interested in locating. Do you know how the algorithm generates its list of suggestions? IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 18:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

When I search on User talk: I get User talk:65.121.141.34 as my top suggestion. Who can understand the mysteries of the Wikipedia search box? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Not that much of a mistery. That top suggestion is likely to just be arbitrary given a very frequent prefix and no better criteria for ranking. Pageviews could definitely be used to improve the relevance ranking, as other have suggested. Other than that, keep in mind that Google and other search engines provide very good results not only because their obvious engineering strength, but also at the expense of virtually unlimited personal data retention. --MarioGom (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Even more bizarre, my 3rd Search result for "User_talk" is crazy (User_talk:"fuck off"), and I think other users might be very offended by results as such. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary sounds about right; instead of User talk:Krich, I have been getting User talk:Captain Ref Desk (who also hasn't edited in over a decade) as the top suggestion when I type in "user talk:" for the past few hours. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 02:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Just as a data point, I was getting that last night as well. This morning, something different: Johman239 . I agree that it is weird and not that useful. I would think that it could either be based on popularity in some sense, or based on some editorial "direction giving" (such as directing people here, although I'm not sure that's right either!) And there is always an interesting tension between algorithms (scalable) versus hand-tuning (only scalable with community control).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: I didn't know about the section above this one when I started this discussion, but it's obvious this is a weird topic many other people have long been wondering about as well. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 04:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Search engines do strange things when you give them very little context. For example, if I search Google for "site:wikipedia.org", then the first result is www.wikipedia.org, but the second and third results are Rouran Khaganate and Rudy Narayan, neither of which you would expect. The less information you give a search engine, the more it tends to extrapolate, and the more arbitrary the results seem. --Deskana (WMF) (talk) 08:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

To explain why btw. As I understand it, search engines deal with huge sets. These sets continuously change but are also 'sharded' (arbitrarily segmented over multiple servers). The search engine basically dispatches the query to multiple shards and each shard returns their best matching items (say best 100). These best matching sets are then unified according to their match scores and then ranked according to various algorithm's. Exact title matches score high, redirect matches a little less high and the rest is either alphabetically or arbitrary. As I said before, I think a lot of the results that people think are 'arbitrary' are actually being boosted by redirect matches The FA vs. The Football Association being a particularly prime example. Now that could easily be disabled, but what if you are looking for "The FA" . You might say, well just show the redirect match, but there are a LOT of redirects, including a lot of really non-sensible ones. The Search results page does this a little better in that it will actually show you in the results that something matched due to the redirect, or a match on a section header. Regardless... User:Deskana (WMF) it might be good to have a page that describes a little bit more 'accessible' how the scoring and ranking works for the various algorithms used for the various lists of results. I see several attempts of documentation have been made, but most are either incomplete, too technical or heavily outdated. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to help at Working Definition of Antisemitism

Hi Jimbo, since you’ve been tweeting/retweeting on this subject quite often in recent days, I thought you might be interested to take a look at the important new article Working Definition of Antisemitism. It still needs some work (e.g. it has an overly long criticism section). Particularly given your knowledge of and interest in this topic, any comments you have would be great. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. As I have a public held view on the subject myself, a view which I think is pretty ordinary and uncontroverial but still, a view, I think it best that I steer clear of editing in this area.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

That's a shame, but makes sense. On a related note, in case of interest, please see Talk:Antisemitism#RFC: Should Wikipedia adopt the Working Definition of Antisemitism?.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I participated in the survey. Very interesting and promising, to me, that terms and words are receiving such careful and thoughtful attention. Reminds me of a persuasive argument by Hayakawa some 55 years ago that virtually all problems, especially conflicts, within mankind are caused by, or at least contributed to, by poor/unclear/inaccurate communication. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

It never hurts to check before you buy

Does anybody know anything about "Wikipedia taps streetwear brand to design fund-raising apparel"? There are about 3 other "news" articles saying the same thing, that "Advisory Board Crystals" is working with the WMF selling $85 t-shirts, "with 100 percent of the proceeds going to the Wikimedia Foundation". It looks a bit strange to me. Actually, I probably wouldn't buy the t-shirts, even if the WMF got the full $85. But I might be tempted to buy one of their $1000 crystals if I still had money in my crystal budget. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Well that sucks

Los Angeles Times:

"Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism."

Can people please rage at EU-parlamentarians or something again? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

As if that would help! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — JFG ^talk 11:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Didn't it help a little during that last WP-blackout episode? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

See also this complaint on the reliable sources noticeboard. Bishonen | talk 12:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC).

LA Times has been "engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options" for quite some time now (months). In the meantime, 99.9% of the rest of the internet, including LA Times competitors, have found such solutions. I'm pretty confident that it's just LA Times being exceptionally lazy with regards to serving a market that they don't actually serve much anyway. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

There is an argument, particularly for a large organization like the LA Times, that this is a poor business decision that doesn't really make sense. But for smaller newspapers, I think it's an arguably rational decision (though a bit paranoid) to not comply and just block Europe instead.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: Since we accept the paper version as RS, as the OP suggested, this is an 'internet-law' problem, see also WP:SOURCEACCESS. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Why should we care? seriously? I don't "get" why we should care whether any particular RS is available or not in any particular part of the world? Nor do I understand how it is any of our business? Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

We don't care as a matter of guideline, but it seems within reason that USERs blocked might 'care', and they are presumably part of 'we'. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

That, pretty much. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

This boilerplate message appears on a pretty wide cluster of U.S. publications. Their publisher must have received legal threats. An unfortunate aspect of the GDPR debacle is that its promoters have enacted potential fines up to 4% of the revenue of the infringing party. That's some serious money, and creates quite an incentive to comply in very fine detail, or throw your hands up and simply block Europe. — JFG ^talk 18:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: Any reliable information for companies that don't actually generate revenue "in Europe" and just decide to ignore this altogether? That is, have home countries (like the US) actually enforced payment of this foreign fine? — xaosflux ^Talk 19:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Much too early to say. The law has only been in force since May 25 this year, and I'm not aware of any litigation involving U.S. companies yet. Besides, I'm pretty sure U.S. media do generate advertising revenue worldwide, even if they have few non-domestic readers. Given the aggressiveness of EU enforcement towards companies like Apple and Google (going so far as ruling against their own member states on tax matters), I would understand that a U.S. lawyer may advise excess caution. Censored in China, self-censored in Europe. Sad! — JFG ^talk 19:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

a thought experiment

Jimbo, I know its not Wikipedia related, but I'm hoping you might have some opinion on this. A pretty smart (pretty and smart and reasonably smart:) woman saw on CNN today where a Lockheed Martin 1 tonne "smart" bomb, under the direction of a Saudi coalition blew up a school bus of 40 children in Yemen. She said that since the bomb was supplied by the USA, should not the USA receive economic sanctions similar to what Russia receives for a poison made in Russia which killed 1 person in the UK? I'm sure there is a rational differentiation but I could use some help in identifying it? Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Obviously there is a rational difference. Sanctions are enacted by those who have the power to do so. --MarioGom (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Any country that wants to impose economic sanctions on the United States or Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates over this horrifying incident is perfectly free to do so. Are we going to do anything about it as Wikipedia editors? Of course not. Discussing it here instead of elsewhere is a complete waste of time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Time wasting is very subjective and uncertain. As an example, the Wikipedia centric idea of the next topic is something the pretty smart woman came up with while we were discussing this topic. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The next round of EU Copyright Directive business

Is the WMF doing anything? Or the en.wikipedia community? XOR'easter (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

An Abridged Wikipedia?

Not to replace but as an added WMF product. Only including time, places and other basic facts of events and people. The existing lead of many of our articles would suffice....so it would be an Abridged Wikipedia consisting only of lead paragraphs. Maybe there is something already like that? I realize that readers today could choose to just read the lead paragraphs, but I still think an abridged version might be practical, useful and appealing for some. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

That's an excellent question, at an excellent time, because I have just researched the answers, re a Wiki-Micropaedia. Let's review the suggestions:

• Use ledes as micro-articles: Well, editors have continually fought to shorten ledes, such as thinking lede details were wp:UNDUE weight to be moved under lower subheaders. Then, consider the congestion of major photos crammed into lede text as illustrations. Plus, if that doesn't explain ledes-cannot-micro, then imagine the outrage of plot details in the lede: "Plot: A group of teenagers attend a party, but lights go out, when a loner starts killing the teens who leave in the dark, and he kills all but the red-headed girl, then gets away to be in the sequel". That plot spoiler could be expected in a micro-page, but many recent readers expect the film plot finale only under "Plot" to avoid such lede spoilers when scanning a film page. A lede cannot be a detail-packed micro-article.
• Use Simple WP as micro-articles: Well, that formerly seemed a great option, but the vocabulary on Simple WP is kept purposely limited, and attempts to create short paragraph pages to explain technical jargon (or medical terms), wikilinked to expand the core vocabulary, have been met with hundreds of jargon-page deletions (or thousands of technical terms deleted as unsourced, "should link wiktionary"). In a sense the deletions were good to avoid users linking words with the wrong technical meaning, among multiple meanings, but deletions are devastating when attempting to be a micro-page but also avoid extra words not explained by wikilinks. The Simple WP cannot be an effective micro-page Micropaedia, when numerous technical terms are deleted as denying explanations.

Hence, the result has been the need for a special Wikimicropaedia, and fortunately, the wp:Vital article lists are being expanded to provide a basis for starting a micro-page project of perhaps 50,000 major pages, plus thousands of tech-term pages to explain technical jargon without crowding the micro-page size. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The Micropaedia is exactly the idea, except with Wikipedia content instead of Britannica. Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Term Limits for Admins

Jimbo - I posted the following suggestion in The Sign Post, and would appreciate your input.

A few thoughts to ponder: 10 year term limits with mandatory evaluation at RfA at year 3 and 6, and then they step down after 10 years. They can reapply after a 2-yr break, if they wish. That's the only way it's ever going to be fair because oftentimes - not always - close friendships and longterm alliances are formed among the ranks. Alliances tend to compromise the integrity of accountability which is why an extra layer of checks and balances is needed. By eliminating the concept of "forever yours" and adding mandatory evaluations, one trickle down positive may very well be a reduction in the hesitancy and concerns that make RfA feel like sitting through a root canal. Another concern is that ArbCom may be passing the buck far too often to individual admins for issues that were once under their jurisdiction, particularly DS enforcement where decisions should be made after careful consideration over time by several rather than a single admin making an on-the-spot decision to block or t-ban an editor. While careful selection of admins and ArbCom candidates is paramount, so is making sure that they have the time to devote to the responsibility which help avoid snap-judgments that are made without careful evaluation of the evidence. I also believe that it's time to start allowing non-admins an opportunity we should consider electing more non-admins to serve on ArbCom, and as a CU which will serve as another layer of checks and balances. While I very much appreciate all the work our admins do to keep the project running smoothly, there is no denying that we occasionally have a few bad apples in the bunch, and mandatory evaluation with term limits can only bring a positive result. ^{Atsme📞📧} 2:34 pm, 13 August 2018, last Monday (2 days ago) (UTC−5)

Thanks in advance...^{Atsme📞📧} 13:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The problem WP will be facing in the future isn't insufficient turnover of administrators, it is insufficient administrators. There are 6 more going away this month due to 12 months of inactivity — that is precisely how many intrepid souls have managed to navigate the sad and broken RFA process this year. We are on a pace to set a new record for the fewest people to successfully run the gauntlet of arbitrary fitness standards, drama, and trivia questions in 2018 — not surprising, really. If it wasn't for the administrators who came on during 2005-2008 still holding tools, we'd be having an entirely different conversation than one about term limits. As for me, I've got no sympathy for a system that considers a 70-30 positive vote a "rejection"... Carrite (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Great idea. We should look for other solutions that don't involve two classes of editor, especially as admins tend to monopolize all the new tech implementations but this sounds like a start. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Carrite - I think the term limits and evaluations will help smooth out the RfA process because there will be less skepticism knowing we'll have evaluation periods, and a "not forever" concept. The latter is what causes the issues over the long term. I found this Guardian article interesting. The author, John Antonakis, is a professor of organisation behavior at HEC Lausanne, and has had an article published in Science, so I figured it would be ok to quote what he said in reference to an experiment they conducted: "Yet, when they became leaders, participants succumbed to the corruptive effects of power. Interestingly, honest individuals were initially shielded from taking antisocial decisions – but, with time, even they slid down the slippery, corrupting slope of power." It's food for thought. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Adminship should be for life, absent bad behavior. It is wrong to take the bit away for 12 months of inactivity. I wouldn't be opposed to some kind of mandatory recall process, and indeed some admins have voluntarily signed up for such a thing, but I do have some concerns that it would simply be a vector for drama and trolling.

My view here is not religious or a matter of faith. My mind could be changed through evidence showing that admins who have been admins for 10 years make noticeably worse decisions than admins who have not. But my sense is that exactly the opposite is the case. Experience brings wisdom and humility more often than the opposite.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The core problem is: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" (in many cases, more about Einstein's warning later). -Wikid77 (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

If you believe that Wikipedia admins wield “absolute power”, you REALLY need to get out of the house more. MastCell ^Talk 00:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok so maybe the other part is "Absolute clueless.." (Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice..", see: [22] parag. 6). An admin states a conclusion or delusion and everyone follows along. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I see. But if an admin states a conclusion and "everyone follows along", isn't the admin enacting the will and consensus of the community—in other words, doing his or her job? And if an admin states a "delusion" and everyone follows along, isn't the fault at least partially with the community, for lacking the judgement to distinguish delusions from constructive proposals? MastCell ^Talk 15:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm personally not a fan of forced admin turnover, BUT it could be argued that forced decimation of a community can be a working method of rejuvenation. Raph Koster discussed techniques like this during his "Wikipedia is a game"-talk at Wikimania London in 2014: "To continue building a brick wall, blow up part of the wall". I still think this talk is one of the best talks about Wikipedia that I ever attended.

In my opinion this talk should be required viewing for all employees and Wikipedians at least once a year. I vote that on january 1st, everyone's account becomes locked until you finished watching this talk. ;) —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I think mandatory evaluations will help immensely, Jimbo, and that will probably eliminate the need for term limits. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

:-) A link to the talk? As a side note, I wanted to add that I agree completely with Carrite's view, above, that "a system that considers a 70-30 positive vote a "rejection"" is broken. I'd be a very strong supporter of a proposal to create new admins on a probationary basis whenever there is a vote of 50%+1 in favor. After 3 months, a review could be held in which they need to get 70% approval, let's say. The merit of this is that overalll there would be no reduction in the standard for it means to be an admin (general community consensus that you're ok) but people would be given a chance to prove themselves in a realistic setting. It's quite common in workplace environments to have a probationary period, for the same reason.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: The title is the link to the talk ;) —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, you mean that thing in the color blue with an underline is a link to the thing mentioned? Forgive me, I'm quite new to the Intarwebs. *sheepish grin*. Thanks!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo, if we already had a 90 day probation period for newly elected admins, and mandatory admin evaluations (say every 3 years) in place, we would not be having this discussion. The abuses are far too many and have occurred over time and are too complex to present them succinctly. Unless you're in the trenches and have been made a target, it's difficult for others to relate. Now we have individual admins executing DS and t-bans on-the-spot which should have required discussion and review by other admins - it's far too much power for a single admin, especially those who are prone to complacency, favoritism and bias, or if RL time constraints are at issue limiting their time to properly review the evidence against an editor. Decisions that were once within the jurisdiction of arbcom have been passed to single administrators who are now making on-the-spot decisions...and that really needs further review because while we would like to think it's all about AGF, there is no consistency, we are dealing with POV, and believe it or not, favoritism and bias. We're losing content creators and admins as a result, so it's a lose-lose proposition. Allowing a regime - and we all know how regimes come into power - to run WP is not such a good idea...at least from my perspective. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Atsme can't say this (and probably won't like me saying this), but I assume the "abuses" are the American Politics topic-ban that Bishonen placed on her (ARCA diff). Whether this type of action should be taken by individual admins or explicitly by the Arbitration Committee is a governance question I assume Jimbo will not comment on. As ARBCOM has twice declined to act in response, I feel the topic-ban has their implicit consent, and it can't be described as a "rogue admin" abuse. If there other examples that don't involve topic bans placed on Atsme, a diff would be helpful. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

"The abuses are far too many and too complex to present them succinctly"--well. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I misspoke, and adjusted my comment accordingly - my apologies. It is not my intention to paint all admins with the same broad brush of criticism, but this year alone has had a rather chilling effect, particularly after that relatively recent incident regarding a long standing admin/crat. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo, what that editor just did is what prevents productive discussion - we see it at RfA, and numerous other consensus seeking venues all the time. It isn't about me because I know full well that I'm not alone. Expect to see "teflon editors" and aggressive admins present their POV. That's how we achieve consensus. I'm simply speaking from experience, not trying to re-litigate anything. I'm a problem solver, not a problem maker. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Diffs? Or a proposal that isn't what Jimbo just disagreed with, and Carrite said isn't a problem at all? power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

As an aside, Atsme makes an incorrect assumption about the rules regarding ArbCom's composition. There is currently no requirement that ArbCom candidates be admin editors, and we have seen one or more non-admin candidates in at least the last four Arbcom elections. (And probably further back, too; I just got tired of looking.) Non-admin editors far outnumber admin editors among those eligible to vote in ArbCom elections, as well. The absence of non-admin editors on ArbCom is due neither to policy nor to cliques and cabals. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I corrected that part. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

There are all of the challenges & problems due to the system, but the only common behavioral problem I've seen is that they very commonly act in a very biased manner when there is another admin involved in a tussle or dispute or when someone questions or criticizes the behavior of another admin. North8000 (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The existence of discretionary sanctions has forever killed the idea of "no big deal". Admins are no longer "janitors" although much of their day to day work is the same as it was 'back in the days of yore'. Now, however, every admin has the ability to place effectively arbitrary (the concept of 'within admin discretion' has been to date quite broad) on a broad and increasing number of articles and the editors who work on them. I am not saying this is a bad thing. Something like it is necessary to manage this project but it fundamentally changes what an administrator is.

Frankly, the community expectations of admin candidates being 'content creators' who 'avoid drama' means that we are selecting editors who are likely completely unqualified to wade into the muck of our high conflict topic areas. We have a dozen or so admins who deal with ANI/AE and a few who pop in and opine from time to time. Most do OK but it is very easy to see where personal views and ego result in sub-par outcomes. There is a huge difference between resolving an issue about a piece of content and a behavioral issue concerning an actual person and we actively select against the later skill set. First the community needs to come to terms with the plain fact that administrators now each have the power actively shape the editing environment and are no longer just quiet janitors who do a bit of maintenance requiring extra permissions.Then we might be able to come up with some kind of reform but so long as we remain mired in the long dead fallacy of "no big deal" we will fail. Jbh ^Talk 19:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Comparing Swedish WP

When Swedish WP changed to 1-year admin term limits in 2006, a major issue was the community-wide aftermath of trying to desysop an admin, beyond all the gunnysacking of rehashing prior unpleasant incidents (reopening "old wounds"), the current disputes to explain misconduct just escalated disagreements between many users. Now of course, the Swedish WP userbase has been very small, but imagine the similar effects of trying to desysop among a larger population and how many ripple effects could run through related user groups. The alternative was just to renew adminship as a yea/nay headcount to avoid rehashing the many details which otherwise could sour the userbase for months (years) afterward. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

It's really hard to compare a wiki with 63 admins to one with well over 1000. SQL^{Query me!} 03:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

It is hard, but there are surely indicative lessons. In general I think we need to get back to my old declaration that being a sysop is "no big deal" - easy to get, easy to lose (for misconduct).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo, I don't know if you're aware of this, but the tools are very difficult to lose. Arbcom stands as the only party that can desysop an individual, and they rarely hear, let alone accept, cases of admin misconduct. This has caused widespread disaffection with the process and to RfA becoming a gauntlet for prospective editors to pass. Despite calls for reform at nearly every RfA I have ever participated in, little action, if any, has been undertaken. This does not appear to be an issue that the community is able to resolve. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

If your problem is too few admins, just grant it after a certain number of edits and create a system to take it away quickly. You would get more admins and bad admins would get their new user rights taken away quickly because you have more admins. In the long run, that would provide for a better administered Wikipedia. There is a number of edits where most people know the rules. Just set a simple standard and let it work itself out.Casprings (talk) 11:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

You do realize that anyone with half a mind could create an army of bots to rack up edits quickly and then wreak havoc as soon as the bit is granted? Of course, WMF Legal also forbids "just handing out the admin bit", so there's that as well. Regards SoWhy 12:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The system now is more like Very Big Deal. Hard to get tools, hard to lose them. It's not an entirely bad change from the 2005-2008 regime: there are fewer loose cannon, bitey admins now than there were then. But there are also fewer admins and the population is declining faster than it is being replaced. At a certain point, that will become a problem. There is no way to wave a magic wand and restore the old norm of very light scrutiny, in my view. The system is what it is; the question is whether that system is working or whether a completely new system for granting the full set of buttons needs to be established. The one proposal that makes sense to me is that a new elected committee, akin to Arbcom, should be elected every year that reviews and grants the status without the rather ridiculous community process currently in place. Why doesn't Wikid have buttons, for example? I have no clue. Two perfectly fine candidates were sunk this year despite their garnering majorities that would have been regarded as landslide approvals in normal democratic elections... There are doubtlessly dozens of others who have been cowed by this process and won't subject themselves to it. Of course, radical change like this will not happen until the lack of administrators becomes a real problem, and so far it isn't. But the population is steadily declining and at a certain point it will be... Carrite (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

One, I am honestly not sure how my comment made it to this section. My mistake. Second, couldn't you just create more of a tiered system. Like a brand-new admin couldn't do a site ban but could do a 24 hour block. Moreover, have a review system for new admins. Just trigger a review by more experienced admins for a certain time period. I would imagine that most users would simply ignore the new rights but some would use it occasionally, which is what you want. You just shouldn't have editors who just spend their time doing admin stuff. You just want to empower people to see something and do something when they know it is wrong. That said, it was just an idea. I don't really care that much. I just saw. this.Casprings (talk) 01:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure WMF Legal would say that - if you can point me to some statement by them on the admin, I'd love to read it. But I do agree that any system for opening up adminship more broadly (which I think is sorely needed) needs to not be automated in such a way that an army of bots or trolls could get it easily. I still am of the view that the easiest and low risk way to do it is to have a "probationary status" for new admins requiring a confirmation vote matching our current standards at the end of a 3 month run. I think a lot of people who are turned away today (or don't bother with the drama of applying) would prove to be perfectly fine admins. It's quite unwiki to be so lacking in trust as our current system is.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

WMF Legal has repeatedly indicated that some sort of "good method of vetting" is required for any position that can access deleted revisions – in fact, Foundation staff has indicated that "any permission which includes the ability to view deleted content must be identical in style and substance to the RFA process of the time". Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Kevin, thanks for source-links about deleted content; I know Jimbo prefers sources on checking major issues. I realize if deleted content hints at outed names, locations, private phones, or (top-)secret data, then WP should restrict access. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

They have, as ever, left themselves—and us—a loophole with that: "...the RFA process of the time". So if the RfA process was vetting by your granny, that's the standard of community oversight that would be considered sufficient by legal—presumably. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

That's completely wrong. Do you imagine that legal makes requirements like this just for the fun of it all? No, they do it to avoid losing lawsuits. The law (whether we agree with it it or not) says that certain copyrighted material has to be removed from public view. Courts have ruled that certain trusted individuals (for most websites this means the server jockeys) can access the removed material. The legal minds at the WMF believe that the present RfA process is good enough so that we would win if we got sued. Perhaps some other process would be acceptable (you would have to ask legal) but "vetting by your granny" most certainly would not. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo, your suggestion is an excellent idea for recruitment, but it doesn't resolve the problem of editor retention and the negative repercussions of life long adminship without some form of checks and balances, such as mandatory periodical reviews. We don't need more admins as much as we need more reviewers, gnomes, content creators, GA/FA promoters - editors who give freely of their time behind the scenes and actually help maintain the quality of our articles. Without them, why do we need admins? The tail is wagging the dog. If an admin has the time to harass an editor they don't like simply because of differences in POV, it's a sign they are not utilizing their time productively, and the behavior needs to be reviewed from an unbiased perspective. AGF doesn't always apply. While the "yours forever" concept may have been a great idea at first, a growing number of editors are concerned that we're dealing with an "admin police force", and I can't imagine that was ever your intention. I agree with you in that most tenured admins learn from experience, and have become better admins as a result, but that is not always the case. It doesn't take many rogue admins to eliminate a lot of good editors. We are still dealing with anonymity in positions of authority, so they have nothing to lose. I was outed a few years ago (partly my own fault as a newbie) so my RL ID in known, and that does tend to make a person more conscious of things they say and do as a WP editor, both here and on Commons. There are many other editors and even some admins in that same boat so we see things from different perspectives as it relates to accountability. The level of difficulty in removing a tenured admin is off the charts - and if an editor dares complain about mistreatment, they may well find themselves on the south end of a north bound train on the WP:POV railroad. It's far too easy for an admin to block or t-ban a tenured editor, which can be done at will by a single admin without question or accountability, because of the way the current system is setup. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with that last sentence, nor with a lot of your empirical assumptions. The fact is, the more senior an admin is, the fewer problems there are. I think it should be easier to lose the admin bit in general for actual misuse. What I'm opposed to is the idea that an admin who is doing good work (which is sometimes unpopular!) needs to be subjected to an annual circus. Admins need a certain level of certainty of tenure in order to be able to draw the line against various short-term dramas.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, some/many admins have trouble with complex topics (their elevator has limits - Google). Such admins might not learn even years later (as in: can't teach an old dog new tricks). That is why years later, some just never get it. Recall Confucius: If after being shown one corner of a subject, the student does not go on to learn the other 3, then I do not repeat the lesson. Such admins can be trouble even many years later. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Re: the more senior an admin is, the fewer problems there are, the community recently found a glaring exception to this assumption, in the case of Andrevan (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Evidence). — JFG ^talk 21:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, it would be difficult to block a "tenured editor", since there's actually no such thing as tenure here, and if you think this would happen "without question", you're obviously not reading the same talk and WP pages everyone else is. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I've seen "senior" admins do stuff knowingly it's against the rules, or even against explicit ARBCOM rulings, and they even noted that in their actions, and they still get away with it because some admins can and do whatever they want. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Diffs? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I have no interest in digging through a noticeboard and I have no interest in getting on the bad side of some of the admins here.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Then you have no interest in defending your position. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I did not know this was a court of law where I have to defend my position. I merely stated my opinion. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

According to WP:NPA, a Wikipedia Policy page, Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. You don't get to say "Someone did something bad" and not back it up.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mention any names. I merely mentioned what I have seen in the past. I don't need to back up such a statement because there is no person involved. But thanks for chilling the air. And again, I'm mentioning this on Jimbo's page in a discussion about admins, not on a page about a person who is under an admin action or ruling, where evidence is being brought forth. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you consider complying with WP policies to have a chilling effect on your editing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, having an admin coming in and posting about NPA when no such thing happened is a chilling effect. Had I said, Sarek used his tools in a bad manner, then that would require evidence, but all I said was that I saw it happen and I made no mention of names so where was the NPA violation? If you really want, I will try to dig up the diff, but last time I pointed out something, I was blocked and I have no interest in being blocked again. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Key word: Personal. No names were stated, implied or, as far as I can tell, even vaguely alluded to. Jbh ^Talk 20:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

At no point does WP:NPA state that an attack has to be on a named editor. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:Casting aspersions would seem to be the thing here. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Just an FYI, not to be controversial or argumentative - definition for personal attack per most online dictionaries: "of, affecting, or belonging to a particular person rather than to anyone else." Hopefully that clears up the issue of whether or not an editor needs to be named. If I am mistaken Sarek, please advise and I will retract my comment. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

(Partial) definition per the policy we're actually discussing here: Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases... directed against another editor or a group of editors. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

So noting that one has observed admins doing bad things is now "Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory"? Yeah … I think not. Jbh ^Talk 22:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Noting that they have and not providing any diffs so that the admins in question can be dragged up to ArbCom. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Still not a personal attack. Also, ArbCom, really? For good yet regrettable reasons such a case would go nowhere – and that gets back to the whole point of this thread. There is no way to deal with lots of low level 'issues' with an admin, not until the problems have risen above the background noise. That means 'blazing dumpster fire' at a minimum because the 'background noise' is, as I have described elsewhere, a "desensitizing cacophony of woe". So here we are left with mentioning that … yep … some admins are actually pretty bad at what they do. Nothing controversial about saying that. Anyone who has edited here for any time will likely see the truth in that. Now, having an admin call a statement like that a freaking personal attack is…

Anyway, some of what people see as 'bad at their job' may just be a mistake, differing interpretation or just the admin having a bad day but at some point it all adds up to 'not suitable to be an admin'. We have no way to examine if that line has, bit by bit, been crossed nor can we, as a community, do anything about it when it is. That is why Astme started this thread and it is why I am exploring a way to come at the issue from the bottom up by hoping some admins recognize the need for community accountability and sign up for something like Binding community recall. Although, based on personal experience, I can see why no admin wants to face the 'what have you done lately' attitude of many in the community. Jbh ^Talk 23:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I've seen "senior" admins do stuff knowingly it's against the rules, or even against explicit ARBCOM rulings, and they even noted that in their actions, and they still get away with it because some admins can and do whatever they want. If this sort of thing is true it would very much justify an ArbCom case. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Just another one of those meaningless and baseless accusations that some people like to throw out; they sound good to some. It's as unfounded as the claim that individual rouge/rogue admins go around banning or t-banning editors and chase them away. All of us admins are under the microscope, certainly those who do their adminning in DS and other arby areas. If some admin goes around placing unfounded topic bans, there'd be a tremendous shit storm and that admin would lose their bit pretty quick. In the absence of such a shit storm... Drmies (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The example I am thinking of in my head was a case where I was not involved at all. I recall an admin blocking or unblocking someone, out of scope of authority. IIRC, it was an ARBCOM block and this admin unblocked with the IAR type of message. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, well...that's good to know. Thanks for your time, Jimbo. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Just because I was curious, I decided to check out what is required to be an admin. Read through Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jbhunley. Yeah, no crap you guys have an admin shortage. Might be worthwhile to get less effort on deciding if user:Jbhunley should be an admin and more focus on building wikipedia.Casprings (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • A hypothetical question for Casprings: would you support JFG becoming an admin? power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Under the system of everyone gets it, but 1. Your tools to start with will be limited and tiered as you get more experience. 2. There is a robust review system for new admins... sure. It isn’t like he doesn’t know the rules here... and for every admin that shouldn’t get it in this future environment, 10 would get it that should and don’t in today’s environment.Casprings (talk) 02:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• I would seriously recommend anyone who has not done so, including Jimbo, to read the recent three-part series on adminship in The Signpost - and the reader comments - or at least the last two articles. Of course there is a mild tad of journalistic licence in those articles, but they are fact -based. All the qualms about bad admins are totally exaggerated and are mainly (note the emphasis on 'mainly') put about by those who feel they have been unjustly treated. Of course there are some slip ups, and of course a tiny percentage of admins have lost their bits 'for cause' but this is far short of a need to tar them all with the same brush or call for time limited adminship or forced re-adminships after a certain time in office. It's hardly surprising there are so few takers for the job, and it's still a 'horrible and broken process' for the reason most people ignore: the behaviour of the voters themselves. To compare with the practices of other-language projects is a false analogy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Kudz - quick question - are there any topics you refuse to edit? If so, why? ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Kudpung, You described it as if there are only the two extremes. "Problems are generally minor and rare" to tar all admins with the same brush as those who lost the bit. That misses the whole middle ground which is that there are some problems that need fixing.North8000 (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

North8000, as far as I can recall, I never said any thing like that, Please provide diffs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Kudpung I was referring to your post a couple lines up. Specifically the spirit of this part of your post: "All the qualms about bad admins are totally exaggerated and are mainly (note the emphasis on 'mainly') put about by those who feel they have been unjustly treated. Of course there are some slip ups, and of course a tiny percentage of admins have lost their bits 'for cause' but this is far short of a need to tar them all with the same brush" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

North8000, the 'spirit' you reported was an exaggeration of what I said, and I certainly did not say what you put in quote marks. That is misleading and an unfair representation of what I inferred. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Kudpung I don't know how you can say "I certainly did not say what you put in quote marks", it is taken directly from your post just a few lines up. Either way I'm sorry if there was any misunderstanding or overstatement . North8000 (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

He can say "I certainly did not say what you put in quote marks" because he certainly did not say "Problems are generally minor and rare", which you put in quote marks. HTH. -- Begoon 02:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Kudpung & Begoon Now I see. I screwed that up. North8000 (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

IMO clearly I think that two things would make a huge improvement.

• One is a new higher / more specialized level of certification needed to take action against autoconfirmed editors. These need to be "Yodas" not just everybody with the tool belt. This makes regular admin be truly no big deal.

• THEN lower the bar a bit at RFA and provide more formatting assistance for the RFA debates. Define the qualities needed and steer most (but not all) of the responses into determining whether or not the person has those qualities.

Yes, the main effective criteria for being in the current admin pool is "got in back when it was easy". And the ultimate COI (admins who are already in preventing change) makes any change hard. But maybe it can be done. North8000 (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

• Just to note: We rely heavily on the the Admin's discretion (this was always true, even before 'discretionary sanctions', as every act of an admin relies on their discretion (ie. whether to do, or not to do, is a 'good thing'), and because good faith is our working assumption, "discretion", which already grants wide-latitude is perhaps even wider (see, Wikipedia:Administrators). And abuse of discretion is traditionally a pretty forgiving standard, which also means that desysop disputes get pretty intense. And yes, sometimes the granting of entrusting with "discretion" gets intense, too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The intense scrutiny of the current RfA process is an excellent way to judge somebody's ability to have earned the trust of the community, and therefore to be granted the privilege of exerting discretion. On another note, with the level of automation and stability reached today, we don't need 1,000 admins to simply police the project. A high barrier to entry is infinitely less messy than a laissez-faire policy of "let's give the keys first and revoke them later if things do not work well". Wikipedia has long passed the happy-go-lucky stage. — JFG ^talk 18:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo said he was opposed to the idea that "an admin who is doing good work (which is sometimes unpopular!) needs to be subjected to an annual circus." I agree and would oppose it, too, but that isn't what I suggested. My proposal was that when an admin reaches the 3rd yr of their term, and again at the 6th yr., they would go through an RfA evaluation. Once they reach year 10, they take a 2-yr break and if they choose, they can come back by applying at RfA. I would even support an every 5th year evaluation with no term limits. It's simply unrealistic to expect admins to be super human - they are as susceptible to dishing out/receiving the raw end of bias, favoritism, COI and POV as any other editor. It is also not too far-fetched to think an admin's discretion in a dispute may be influenced by whoever happens to be involved, such as friends and favored editors whose POV aligns with their own. I believe that any editor who has been editing WP for at least 3 years, possibly less, knows the latter to be true. I don't expect to see many editors weigh-in here because of concerns they will fall from grace and become the target of retaliation, and that's part of the problem. Editors should not fear being targeted simply because they participated in such a discussion and expressed their views. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

It's an interesting discussion, and thanks for starting it. However, per the post immediately above, is there actual evidence that anyone who has contributed here has been "targeted" for "retaliation?" If so, details please so it can be addressed. If not, I doubt this claim is a particularly helpful addition to the thread. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Those who could access that evidence are also the ones that could be harmed by it. It may exist, but I doubt it will be forthcoming. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as they say. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, vague conspiracy theories don't cut it. If you have any evidence of people being "targeted" for "retaliation" because they've contributed to this thread, forward it to any one of (say) Arbcom, a Functionary, a trustee, the WMF or even Jimbo himself for action. Otherwise this comes across as a nonsense claim. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I never suggested a conspiracy, only that rational individuals will not willingly offer up anything that could only be used to harm themselves. I also never claimed to support any of the above arguments, I only pointed out the flaw in yours. I don't pretend to speak for others here; have some patience and wait for others to respond in their own way. I find "nonsense" in first asking for us to toss you some evidence, then immediately shifting the goalposts over to the very system in question.

Verifiability guides our articles, and consensus guides our discussions. I should hope you'd have more respect for any position held by a large group of productive Wikipedians. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: You're right. We don't need 1,000 admins simply to police the project. We do need them for what they've always done - keep the lights on and clean up the mess. Janitorial work. Few will disagree that backlogs have become more frequent and more severe. Process is being twisted and subverted in the name of expediency - particulary with respect to deletion. Non-admin closures are becoming increasingly problematic, and speedy deletions are now often done on sight by a single admin, rather than the originally intended system requiring the involvement of at least two editors (one to tag, and one to delete, and an inherent delay between the two for added transparency). Blocking has gotten nearly as bad. An attempt by me to edit an article while logged out a few days ago was blocked because my IP happened to be caught in an overly large net whose scope is justified only because our current stock of admins couldn't handle the workload of a more precise solution. Specifically, over sixty-four thousand potential IP addresses (centered in an area with very high rates of internet traffic) were blocked to stop a single LTA - and this is typical for a range block. I spot-checked WiFi networks and cellular networks in my area, and can tell you that this particular block is affecting not less than five actual Wikipedia editors (who edited infrequently by IP), as well as hundreds of other learned individuals with free time and reliable access to the internet as well as some of the best physical information repositories in the world - all potential Wikipedia editors. Sloppy, sloppy work, done because they lack the skills and the boots on the ground to do it properly. I don't mind posting this from my account - I've named no names, and any ham-fisted attempt at reprisal will only add to my case. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know which "originally intended system" you're referring to. Speedy deletions have been "done on sight by a single admin" (at their discretion) for nearly as long as the project has existed. Fourteen years ago (and eight years before you made your first Wikipedia edit) the first sentence of WP:CSD was "There are a few, limited, cases where sysops can delete Wikipedia pages "on sight"." The criteria have evolved somewhat over the years, more elaborate templates have been created, and WP:CSD has certainly gotten wordier, but the scope of articles eligible for speedy deletion has remained quite narrow and the process has remained essentially unchanged. There have been occasional attempts to impose a 'two-man rule' in policy, and admins have always had the option to tag rather that immediately delete (as a way to get a second pair of eyes on borderline cases) but it has never been a requirement. Meanwhile, WP:PROD was introduced around 2006 as a lightweight approach that does provide the sort of delayed tag-evaluate-delete cycle you're talking about, for cases that fall outside CSD's narrow criteria. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for this. It's getting a bit off-topic for this thread, but I'll be sure to give it the attention it deserves at a more appropriate place and time. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2018 is public, and (mostly) complete. Most of the activity relates to either geo-political conflicts (India-Pakistan, Palestine-Israel, Eastern Europe) or American Politics. I would assume any other controversial blocks are discussed at WP:AN or WP:ANI. The philosophical argument against range-blocks of dynamic IPs aren't really an "admin abuse" thing, it's a community policy (and one that I support as currently implemented). power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

A true "Appeal to Jimbo"

Tangent from thread: "#Term Limits for Admins". -Wikid77 (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Wales: you may wish this were no big deal, you may wish you didn't have to step in, but you do. The WMF has proven themselves to be misguided and incompetent when dealing with matters even approaching this gravity. The community is fractured, and unwilling to set aside their differences to do what must be done. The importance of this project to the world, now more than ever, can hardly be overstated. Much as you might try to distance yourself, this project is still your responsibility. I'm not asking you for unilateral action, I'm asking you to actively participate in the leadership position you've occupied, but that for many years has been little more than a title. I expect you'll need to spend some time re-familiarizing yourself with state of things (what you see on your talkpage is far from a complete picture of the current state of the community and the project as a whole), but as soon as you're able, I implore that you do what needs to be done. At this point, choosing to do as little as possible is a much a choice as any, and you are responsible for what results. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this is Jimmy Wales' responsibility: it is our responsibility as a community. If we don't rule ourselves, others will rule it for us. Don't pass the buck. Carrite (talk) 02:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The wp:RfA reforms have become an "RfA-Catch-22" where many users want to support the RfA reforms, but they imagine admins will strongly oppose reforms, but if they say that, then they think admins will accuse and demand diffs of admin dogpiling; so to avoid sanction threats, then users avoid RfA reforms, but many users want to support the RfA reforms, but they imagine admins will strongly oppose reforms, but if they say that... (repeat & repeat & repeat)". Hence people think Jimbo could reform the RfA system beyond all the imagined resistance from the current admins, but many admins also reject Jimbo's ideas about sysop reforms. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I don't think Mysterious Whisper is complaining about RFA, I think he's complaining that a mysterious cabal of admins is doing something so nefarious that there's no evidence of it anywhere on the project. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I see we're all reading what we want to into my statement, which is fine, as I left it purposely vague and was hoping for this sort of editorializing. I'm merely asking Jimbo to actively fill the role of a community leader - I don't really care what he actually does, as long as he regularly does something impactful. I'd go into more details, but at this point, I think it's best if Jimbo simply sees what's here, and anything others add. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Carrite: Please refrain from changing section headings in controversial threads without first consulting the editor who started them (as recommended at WP:TPO). Though only tangentially related, I felt this thread made more sense within the context of the previous thread (which was Term Limits for Admins, for anyone who finds this in the archive), but I'm not going to revert you. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikid77: Not quite what I was going for, but your last sentence hits close to the mark. Jimbo is the one registered user here who doesn't really have to care about what "many admins" think of their actions, and who can truly consider all members of the community equally. To paraphrase what he stated earlier, good work is sometimes unpopular. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Power~enwiki: I explicitly stated in the section above that there is no conspiracy (or "cabal," to use a dirty word), but we do have a large subgroup of editors united by power, secrecy, and common interest, who have the means and the motive to use their power to further their common interest (staying in power) in ways that might conflict with the real interests of the project. This sort of thing is the root of most conspiracy theories, but the conspiracy theories only distract from the real issues, hence why the "cabal" thing used to be joked about (much less so now). It doesn't matter whether this has actually happened or whether I believe it, because we've had scores of objectively productive editors coming here for years making the same kind of complaints. Even if the admins are just pissing off those who've done something wrong, we can't keep losing highly qualified and productive editors just because the admins are cranky and overworked. If forced to choose whether we loose our most temperamental admins, or our most temperamental contributors, I'd keep the latter, because they are more numerous and contribute much more to the project. Though, ideally, we'd find a way to work with and keep both, the systems currently in place just aren't cutting it. Mysterious Whisper (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Your problem is that without context everyone is going to suspect you're just another advocate for pseudoscience or religious bullshit who got rebuffed. Sorry, that's just how it is. The 99% of complainants who fall into that category give the 1% of valid commentators a bad name. Guy (Help!) 18:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Re: keep most temperamental contributors. Indeed, a good strategy because temperamental editors tend to fight around NPOV neutral balance, until a level-headed admin can come to reduce the fight(s). Instead, when "temperamental admins" start blocking (or topic-banning) the "temperamental contributors" then the page(s) could become slanted, quickly, by less temperamental contributors who get free reign when the "false-data haters" are insta-blocked without taking time to calmly (not temperamental) intervene using admin actions. Seems like User:Mysterious Whisper is writing a lot of good ideas, and should probably write more wp:Guidelines or help rewrite wp:Policies for better accuracy in WP pages. We definitely see overblock-to-reduce-conflicts, but allow other side to slant pages with false data or "sins of omission" of facts, where slanting can mislead readers to conclude wrong impressions about topics. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

New diff still comparing paragraphs when moved

Just FYI. Over the past few weeks, I have confirmed the new "weave-diff" is doing well in comparing the text, between revisions, even when paragraphs have been moved over 20 paragraphs up/down. For example, in a recent edit of page "Roman Ruins of Milreu", I moved 3 "File:" images lower down the page while also resizing each image from "235px" (to the user-preference "upright=1.2"), and the diff highlighted each "235px" as having been changed: (diff: [23]). The 3 images were each moved to different locations, but the diff correctly compared each image-link where it was moved and noted "upright=1.2" was the new text. Now, this extremely difficult weave-diff pairing, of moved paragraphs, still has some limitations, and I had to leave a blank line after the 4th paragraph, in order for each of the 3 moved image-link paragraphs to correctly match the original 3 image-links above the 4th paragraph in the section. However, for limited movement of a few paragraphs, the "diff" operation is quite amazing to compare paragraphs, for altered text, when moved far across a page. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Auto-translate better with "no longer" instead of "not"

Just FYI. As noted in years discussing Google Translate, the pesky word "not" keeps getting omitted in various auto-translations of pages. To circumvent the problem, I successfully reworded text with "no longer" (instead of basic "not"), and the auto-translate worked in Esperanto version, "eo:Bill Gates" to translate with "no longer" into the Esperanto sentence, and back into English:

"Microsoft anoncis, ke Gates ne plu partoprenus aktive en la ĉiutaga laboro de la kompanio"

to get auto-translation:

"Microsoft announced that Gates would no longer participate actively in the company's daily work"

where the phrase "no longer" is not lost in translation as would the word "not". -Wikid77 (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

OMG this isn't going to lead to another horrific repetition of this, is it? --JBL (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Abuso

Quero denunciar o abuso de um sysop na WP-PT por bloqueio no meu IP sem qualquer motivo. 179.154.60.118 (talk) 03:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Ver meu IP na wp-pt para ver que não fiz nada para ser bloqueado. 179.154.60.118 (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo and the English-language wikipedia community are unlikely to be able to help you with issues on the Portuguese Wikipedia. (Jimbo e a comunidade wikipedia em inglês provavelmente não poderão ajudá-lo com questões sobre a Wikipédia em português.) power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Power~enwiki, posso comer vidro, não me fere. Drmies (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

"Roundup" (Monsanto/Bayer's top selling herbicide) has no Wikipedia page?!

Hi Jimmy, I alerted you back in 2013 that Wikipedia has a Monsanto problem. I notice Nassim Taleb has also made note of this problem and tried to alert you in a tweet.

The editors who have been left in charge of Monsanto related articles (those who did not get banned during ArbCom or since then) have decided that the number one leading herbicide on the planet, "Roundup", should not have a page in your encyclopedia. It was deleted when the suite of related articles were taken over by one editor in 2012 (detailed in my 2013 diatribe). The main ingredient, Glyphosate, has been passed off as synonymous with Roundup since then, with readers being directed to that page instead.

As you have probably heard, Roundup was just found to have caused a man's cancer. There are upwards of 5,000 more cases waiting in the wings. During discovery, Monsanto's own internal emails showed that they knew their product was dangerous, and that there was a clear distinction between the main ingredient, and the formulated product (due to synergistic effect). In the case it was revealed that Roundup is more toxic than Glyphosate alone, and these court cases target the formulated product.

This court case was so impactful it knocked 11% off of Bayer's stock. Bayer came out in defense saying "Glyphosate does not cause cancer". Well, it was Roundup that was found guilty. The important part of this for you, is that Wikipedia is essentially not impartial on this since the site has been supporting the defense: that "Glyphosate" and Roundup are interchangeable terms. This is anti-science at best.

I argued this point on the Glyphosate talk page a few nights ago after noticing this huge Monsanto news hadn't been covered on WP besides one line on a Monsanto offshoot page, "legal cases". The one article chosen as a source was entitled "Glyphosate does not cause cancer". During my few hours of editing on August 15, someone popped up out of nowhere and literally created a new page: Glyphosate-based herbicides, which was apparently supposed to end the debate. Your editors do not seem to think "Roundup" deserves to have its page reinstated. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. petrarchan47คุก 18:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

They are not Jimbo's editors, they are individuals. And consensus dictates what gets and doesn't get an article. The question you might want to ask is: Is "RoundUp" notable because it is "RoundUp" or because it is a glyphosate-based herbicide? I strongly suspect the latter. Regards SoWhy 18:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Right, and we were in the middle of a discussion aimed at getting a consensus to reinstate the Roundup article. Our conversation was cut off at the knee when the new page was created. Here is what I was saying on the talk page:

Why is Roundup notable by itself:

"Plaintiffs claim that Monsanto “knew or should have known that Roundup is more toxic than glyphosate alone” but continued to advertise the product as safe. In a 2002 e-mail, Monsanto product–safety strategist William Heydens wrote to Donna Farmer, one of the company’s leading toxicologists: “What I’ve been hearing from you is that this continues to be the case with these studies—glyphosate is OK but the formulated product (and thus the surfactant) does the damage.” The Nation

HuffPost: Brent Wisner, a lawyer for Johnson, in a statement said jurors for the first time had seen internal company documents “proving that Monsanto has known for decades that glyphosate and specifically Roundup could cause cancer.”

"What keeps Monsanto healthy is Roundup, a chemical herbicide developed more than two decades ago. It is the best-selling agricultural chemical product ever, with $2.8 billion in sales last year; it outsells other chemicals five to one." NYT petrarchan47คุก 19:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is pretty clear that targeting roundup is a way of targeting "Monsatan" in the hopes of destroying the organic industry's no. 1 bogeyman. But roundup is not a separate subject from glyphosate. Guy (Help!) 13:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear what you want, other than to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS caused by Monsanto/Bayer. Having an article on Glyphosate-based herbicides seems to be an improvement. I think that the content on Roundup Ready soybeans at Genetically modified soybean could probably be split to its own article as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

On what do you base this accusation that I am here to right wrongs, other than POV on an encyclopedia? petrarchan47คุก 19:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

At first glance, the articles don't seem complete or unbiased. Notably, the March Against Monsanto article includes some more or less WP:OR (by which I mean, original synthesis with weak linkage, or some would say "WP:COATRACK") material about how GMOs on the market are not known to be toxic -- as GMOs. The argument I am familiar with regarding Monsanto GMOs is that Roundup Ready crops are designed to be sprayed with huge amounts of RoundUp. It is the potential for food or environmental contamination with that product which is the source of concern. this page and some of the pages it links give evidence that MAM does use those arguments. It is perhaps worth perusing some articles linked from this review of recent news about glyphosate being found in various foods, such as breakfast cereals. (note that the results leading to those articles, from EWG, were obtained with different standards than those recommended by the industry as described at the MAM article) Now I'm not going to solve this entire issue forever here, but I am going to say that if our articles on the pesticide, the crop designed to be sprayed with a huge amount of it, and the protest against the crop and company all fail to even mention the key issues that people who have heard the story know about, and they do include the same boilerplate, probably word for word, about the safety of GMOs, then there's something rotten here. This isn't WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS but WP:MAKEWRONGSGOAWAYLIKETHEYNEVEREVENHAPPENED. Wnt (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The Glyphosate being found in breakfast cereals news was well covered in media, but was not added to Wikipedia. The boilerplate "GMOs are safe" paragraph that is indeed plastered to every GMO-related article on WP is rotten to the core. It enjoys it's own novel rule: the paragraph cannot be changed at all, unless the proposed change has been through an RfC. petrarchan47คุก 09:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I stopped editing because of astroturf on roundup-related articles. 107.77.165.8 (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

if the product its self is notable for having received non-trivial coverage after having been embroiled in a scandal it may deserve an article or a section within an article on the type of pesticide to which it belongs. Probably best to continue this discussion on either the talk pages of the concerned editors or on the talk pages of the most closely related articles. The related policies I can see here are N|notability and Fork/Spin off articles if there’s a parent article on the chemical but a sufficient bulk of source material on the actual product. The manufacturer in this case is also a parent article which could debatably absorb the subject you want to add as an article because if there were a legal scandal it makes sense hat the complaints would be made against the manufacturer, thus conferring notability to the company, more than the productEdaham (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I rarely comment here, but I think it's worth looking at what the community, collectively, has decided about such content, as opposed to the individual opinions of a few self-selected editors, particularly because the community has spent a lot of time and effort on this. I would point out, in particular, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms, as well as the determinations by ArbCom to (1) enact discretionary sanctions in this topic area, and (2) specifically determine that it is disruptive and a violation of WP:NPA to claim without evidence that other editors are editing on behalf of GMO companies. There is ongoing discussion about page content regarding the recent court verdict at Talk:Glyphosate and Talk:Glyphosate-based herbicides. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Imo, there should be an article about and titled Roundup (herbicide) just like there should be an article titled Earth, as opposed to it being only included in Planet and Milky Way. The fact that there is no such article already makes it ok for that fact to be discussed here, I think. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

These things are matters of editorial judgment. After all, we don't have a page about each and every Pokémon. Interested editors should feel free to comment at the article talk pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure what purpose is served discussing this here. I would however recommend that interested editors read the related talk pages (Talk:Glyphosate and Talk:Glyphosate-based herbicides) where there is ongoing discussion on how to present this information as Petra is completely misrepresenting the situation. No one was trying to hide the court case. As for RoundUp there was a consensus to create a RoundUp article, but valid concerns that this will lead to a POV fork were raised. A new editor to this area decided to make Glyphosate-based herbicides as a way to mitigate the POV fork concerns and despite a few bumps at the moment there is consensus that this is a step in the right direction. We need new good faith editors in this area willing to add content and accusing them of off-wiki communication or other bad faith efforts are not going to improve the coverage of this topic. AIRcorn (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The article is under discretionary sanctions by default, due to the subject. Two of the most vocal advocates here are, I believe, well known partisans in the anti-Monsanto/GMO campaign on-wiki. Guy (Help!) 18:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Please be careful about casting aspersions, Guy. You know what the rulings were after the GMO ArbCom. If it was found that I was biased, that would have turned up in the case. It did not. My work was seen as non-problematic by everyone but you and tryp, who both thought I should be banned from all editing of WP forever. You are the outliers. petrarchan47คุก 19:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, the text version that I proposed in WP:GMORFC was strongly endorsed and selected by the community, so I'm not that much of an outlier. Also, although ArbCom chose not to sanction many editors in the case itself, a significant number of named parties were subsequently topic-banned at WP:AE under the discretionary sanctions. And given the diff shown just above by Aircorn, I hardly think that Guy is the one casting aspersions. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that was the point I was making. This is an area under DS, so putting your head above the parapet like that, especially when you're already a known face, is a Bad Idea. Guy (Help!) 18:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Need glyphosate-controversies page

In cases of intense legal battles, public protests, or TV shows instantly cancelled (etc.), the best solution has been to create a separate page, for each area of controversies, to accumlate details (into the separate page) about lawsuits, boycotts, defamation or criminal trials, etc. Then in each related page, related to the topic controversies, merely link to the separate controversies page, without repeating detailed claims or cites or insult-title source pages spammed into "20" other pages. Otherwise, an wp:NPOV neutral description page of the product(s) or TV show(s) can become overwhelmed as wp:Coat-racks with numerous paragraphs about several lawsuits which take years (or decades) to resolve the judgments or refute the false insults. In similar separations of product names as redirects into broader articles, or a separate controversies page, then the edit-war chaos has been reduced by 10-50x less, as if the product-name article had been a madness-magnet for edit-wars to wp:Grandstand intense opinions into the topic article. Instead, by redirecting names, or linking, to a broader or controversies page, then the effective reduction in edit-wars or spam, for over 10 years, has been almost like technological magic. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:47/12:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

No, we need fewer idiots trying to crowbar anti-GMO "Monsatan" bullshit into the news and into our articles. Guy (Help!) 13:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Guy, I'd like to know what effect you think the recent court judgement and the emails in evidence admitting that Roundup's surfactants were known sysergistic carcinogens should have on the longstanding discretionary sanctions. 64.164.193.129 (talk) 05:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Courts don't decide science. The impact of surfactants is changing a very tiny risk to a merely tiny risk, in the end years of diligent digging by the anti-Monsanto lobby has failed to provide any compelling evidence of actual harm to anyone. Guy (Help!) 15:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

"Mike DeVito, acting chief of the National Toxicology Program Laboratory, told the Guardian the agency’s work is ongoing but its early findings are clear on one key point. “We see the formulations are much more toxic. The formulations were killing the cells. The glyphosate really didn’t do it,” DeVito said." Guardian petrarchan47คุก 09:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

...and if anyone can show me a WP:MEDRS compliant source that shows any compelling evidence of actual harm to anyone, I will be glad to make sure that it gets put into the appropriate article, or into a new article. I would hate to lose those sweet monthly paychecks from the pesticide lobby and the farmers union, but there are still plenty of other evil corporations willing to bribe Wikipedia editors... --Guy Macon (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

With regard to Monsanto, MEDRS has to be looked at with intense discrimination when you consider that the company has been ghostwriting and manufacturing its own science, as well as working too closely with the EPA. The recent case was won by what was revealed in Monsanto's own internal emails.

• "During Dawayne Johnson's trial, the judge ordered Monsanto to provide internal documents, memos and emails indicating that the company long knew that Roundup could potentially cause cancer. The documents show that Monsanto's hired scientific adviser warned its testing of glyphosate was inadequate, since the other chemical ingredients in Roundup were not included."DW

• "Above all, the Monsanto papers show that the experts were very aware of a fact that is often lost in the public debate: In addition to glyphosate, herbicides like Roundup contain other dangerous chemicals that are necessary to enable the active ingredient to penetrate hard plant walls, among other things. These ingredients are often more harmful than the active ingredient on its own."Der Spiegel

• "...The Monsanto experts came to a similar conclusion. "Glyphosate is OK, but the formulated product causes the damage," Monsanto researcher Heydens wrote to Donna Farmer. Monsanto did nothing to warn the public. Instead, the company continued its massive lobbying campaign and did everything conceivable to discredit researchers whose work was not in Monsanto's interest."Der Spiegel

• "Mr. Partridge [Bayer] doesn’t say Roundup doesn’t cause cancer; he says glyphosate. And he does that intentionally, because he knows that glyphosate is different than Roundup. Now, glyphosate is part of Roundup, but Roundup is a combined product of glyphosate plus a bunch of other chemicals that make glyphosate significantly more potent. And one of the things that the jury is really focused on, this jury in our case, was that there’s a synergistic effect of the glyphosate and the other chemicals. And the simple fact is, Monsanto has never tested the carcinogenicity of the combined product. And this omission is glaring, and it’s intentional. In fact, we have internal documents that say, “We do not want to look at this issue because we’re afraid of what we’re going to see.” And the jury heard all this, and they rejected this idea that it’s a safe product, that it doesn’t cause cancer. And they said not only does it cause cancer, but that Monsanto acted with malice in doing so." - Brent Wisner, lead council in Roundup cancer case.

But none of this has been added to the encyclopedia. petrarchan47คุก 09:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I won't weigh in on anything of substance regarding whether Roundup causes cancer or not. I do have a strongly held view, privately, but it is not relevant here. I will say that it does seem likely to me that a reasonable case can be made for separate pages. One of the only reasons I would be reluctant to see that is that a separate page for "Roundup" versus "glyphosate" is likely to lead to the "Roundup" article being a battleground WP:COATRACK that fails to inform readers of the full context. That is, of course, a valid conversation for people to have - on the talk page of the article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Purely as information about what exists as of now, we do have two separate pages: Glyphosate, which focuses on the compound, and Glyphosate-based herbicides. The latter is about RoundUp along with the 700+ other products that have compositions that are very similar to that of RoundUp (and RoundUp redirects to there, while Roundup is a disambiguation page). And again, I encourage editors to discuss this at the corresponding article talk pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I also feel like this can easily be covered on the Glyphosate-based herbicides page (as Tryptofish says, RoundUp redirects there), and the discussion should take place on that page's talk page. Much of what the OP is asking for is already covered there, and any omissions can be discussed at the talk page whether they have WP:WEIGHT for inclusion. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Let me remind you that this thread began the night the "Glyphosate based herbicides" article went live. It was created without any discussion or participation in the ongoing, live conversation about the need for the Roundup page. The first time this editor spoke up was to announce this new article. It seems very underhanded and to hear its creation being used now as a way to say that Wikipedia really doesn't need a page for Roundup leaves me feeling uneasy. I cannot believe I am the only editor who has a problem with the way this is playing out. petrarchan47คุก 08:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Science: How Do You Assess if a Chemical Causes Cancer? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I despise WP:MEDRS always, but this is an amusingly typical application of it. MEDRS says don't rely on animal studies, rely on meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. Which means that to get a "reliable source" that MEDRS proponents would accept for an article, you have to find someone who dosed half a group of kids with Roundup and half with placebo to see what happened -- and another, and a guy to summarize the two studies for you. Needless to say, I don't expect to see many allegations of environmental hazards here. Wnt (talk) 03:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

That's not really what MEDRS says. Although it correctly points out that randomized controlled trials are better than some other kinds of studies, that's not the same thing as saying that they are the only kind of source that can be cited. Regarding herbicides, it basically comes down to basing a statement along the lines of "glyphosate does or does not cause cancer" on a secondary source instead of a primary source. Given the number of primary-source research papers that prove incorrect (and I'm saying this as a professional scientist in real life), we should not mislead our readers with information that has yet to be recognized by a secondary source such as a scientific review paper. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

What is needed are review articles published in reliable journals, like this one about benzene. Count Iblis (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Case was Ranger Pro not Roundup

Another issue was the Johnson cancer case being really about Monsanto Ranger Pro,[24] as an industrial-strength herbicide (weed killer) but not really the typical Roundup. So inquiring minds want to know strength difference of Ranger Pro versus typical Roundup, and that could be a separate page, perhaps as a relatively rare product name, in various sources, but not likely to incite wp:Battleground disputes. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

It does seem quite relevant, yes, to identify the exact product. I don't know if that means a separate page is warranted or not - I have no immediate opinion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Great reason for a page on glyphosate based herbicides rather than forking every single variant. Guy (Help!) 17:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

According to the sources that are cited at the page currently, the lawsuit was about both RoundUp and Ranger Pro, each used by the plaintiff at different times. Again, it's probably more useful to discuss this at the article talk page rather than here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

An article on a highly notable proprietary product is the norm in Wikipedia

An article on a highly notable proprietary product is the norm in Wikipedia. We have a Tide (brand) article even though we have a laundry detergent article. We have a Ford Mustang article even though we have a Car article. Ad infinitum, including specific products that are 100 times less wp:notable then Roundup. This is even more striking with Roundup, where there is an immense amount of coverage and happenings specific to Roundup. In fact, I think that the wp:notability of Roundup is probably an order of magnitude greater than that of its chemical categorization Glyphosate-based herbicides which does have an article and is where folks are saying to cover Roundup. North8000 (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

See WP:PAGEDECIDE, especially the first two bullet points. Add to that the fact that there are many trade names that even Monsanto sells Glyphosphate based herbicides by, and there is good reason not to have a standalone article. There are other good reasons not to do so, such as the likelihood that such a standalone article would become a WP:COATRACK for POV warriors, and a WP:CONTENTFORK of material at Glyphosate-based herbicides. Advantages to a standalone article would be covering the history of the brand name, but this is again partially covered over at Glyphosate-based herbicides, and confused by Monsanto's multiple trade names. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think those particular examples are on-point, but in any event there are other examples worth considering. Robimycin, a brand name of Erythromycin is a redirect, as is Erymax. As far as I can tell, the majority of drug brand names redirect to the formal scientific/chemical name. In the realm of agricultural chemicals, consider the growth regulator Alar also Kylar, both of which redirect to Daminozide.

Here's why I don't find your examples compelling.... Tide is to a laundry detergent as Round-up is to a herbicide. No one is suggesting that we redirect Round-up to herbicide. Similarly, a Ford Mustang is to a car as Round-up is to a herbicide.

The key is that in almost all similar cases, we redirect the brand name to the chemical name. It would therefore take an extra argument to show why this case should be different.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo is correct. A better analogy than cars or detergent would be pharmaceuticals. Consider Lipitor with $125 billion in sales, which redirects to Atorvastatin. Similarly, Viagra redirects to Sildenafil. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Here's the sort of argument that I might find plausible (I'm not putting this forward, just chewing on the question a bit). If, as some allege, Round-up is somehow different in a material way (due to its particular formulation in terms of surfactants and whatnot) from other formulations then a separate page might be warranted. For example, if Round-Up contained, in addition to the glyphosate, a healthy dose of some aflatoxin, while no other brands on the market did, then given the cancer worries (aflatoxins are notoriously carcinogenic) a separate article might be warranted. The issue is that, as far as I can tell, the idea that Round-Up is particularly more carcinogenic than other similar products is not something shown in reliable sources.

As it stands, for me, no matter what one's personal views might be on whether glyphosate causes cancer, a single page makes the most sense. If it is a carcinogen according to reliable sources, then that article should say so. If it is not (or not likely to be, which is the way science is likely to phrase it), then the article should say so. Or, as is really likely the case here, there are competing claims on both sides, then the article should document the whole ball of wax. A separate article doesn't hinge on the question of whether it is a carcinogen.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

This might be what you're looking for New Evidence About the Dangers of Monsanto’s Roundup - it goes into the dangers of some of the known additives. petrarchan47คุก 09:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The title says "New Evidence", but the source is from 2016, and the IAARC etc analyses are already prominently covered in the pages about glyphosate and the herbicides. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, the problem of a one-page topic, in a major controversy, is seeing an alleged-cancer debate masquerading as an herbicide, while the "real" issue might be Roundup can be used to kill even stubborn weeds (such as invasive spiderwort?) by repeated applications, perhaps 3x over 3 weeks, with the emphasis on herbicide not alleged-carcinogen (which should be moved to a controversies page). It would be like page "lawnmower" obsessed with 5-per-million users suffered hearing loss because they claim earmuffs should have been warned on mower box and cover of mower manual, while others claim need for Spanish-language on all manual covers due to frequent Hispanic landscaping services; and so nevermind what lawnmowers mow. Or an article about private email servers, routinely purged of 500 messages per month, plus replaced with 2 newer computers each year (reformat-wiping the prior servers), as instead overshadowed with obsessive speculation of what Saturday night were 30,000 emails "deleted" and was TheOneServer^TM wiped that same Saturday night while other people were asleep(!!!), versus the actual monthly purging emails for 4 years on multiple servers. Hence, WP should separate speculative sensational debates (onto a separate page) to better explain an herbicide sprayed to control invasive species of plants. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Jimbo's hypothetical argument suggesting a separate page. That argument makes perfect common sense, imo, and also does not rely upon technicalities which, I think, in this specific matter, might better be pushed aside by Ignore all rules. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

We probably cover many consumer goods under popular brand names because the brands became so pervasive to a wide demographic, unlike more niche industrial/chemical products. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not involved at those articles. I was exploring this here for a few reasons. One is avoiding bias; knitted into many of the posts is a concern that the article doesn't exist because an influential amount of the involved editors don't like Roundup or Monsanto. I don't know whether or not this is true / has been a balance-tipper, but we should make sure that that isn't happening. The second is structural, we often fail to realize that articles are often significantly about a term or a real world item as seen though the lens of a term, rather than just the physical entity (in this case the chemical substance) itself. Or in this case, it's also about a brand name, trademark, cultural phenomena, political controversy, symbol, departments or divisions of a company, and an immensely wp:notable one at that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

By way of understanding how the long-term dispute over this content evolved, it's actually not the case that "influential" editors dislike Monsanto and are trying to cut down on our coverage of it. In contrast, there have been editors who dislike Monsanto and want to add coverage intended to make Monsanto look bad. In response, other editors (probably regarded inaccurately as "influential" by the anti-Monsanto POV-pushers, as typically happens when editors with an agenda bump up against the larger editing community), have sought to avoid POV violations, and one manifestation of that dispute is the suggestion at the beginning of this discussion that a dedicated RoundUp page be created, opposed by other editors on the grounds that it would be a "RoundUp is bad and Monsanto is evil" POV-fork. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight on who wants it and who doesn't. I've not been involved there. That sounds sad. An environment where such a briefly and neutrally titled article is likely to become a bash fast. North8000 (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, my suggestion was to have Jimmy and the rest of the group consider the fact that Wikipedia has no page for Roundup. I have not suggested one be created, I have suggested the Roundup page that used to exist (conflict-free, I might add), which was deleted without community discussion, be reinstated. There was never a reason to delete it in the first place, and as I have shown, redirecting "Roundup" to "Glyphosate" and treating them as synonymous is anti-science. I told you this a year ago - the two are not the same. There should be no reason to argue against reinstating the Roundup article if editors are here to help inform readers rather than to hide information. Your suggestion that the addition of 'negative' information about Monsanto or any of their products is a bad thing, regardless of its prominence in RS, proves well my original point. Editing with the goal of protecting Monsanto is antithetical to building a NPOV encyclopedia and in a sane world, should be grounds for a topic ban. petrarchan47คุก 08:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I think your intention was actually to end-run round agreement elsewhere that it is adequately covered in glyphosate-based herbicides. Jimmy only rarely expresses an opinion on what the title and focus of a particular article should be. Guy (Help!) 08:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Roundup had its own article until 2012 when it was unceremoniously deleted, for no reason, and contrary to science, redirected to "Glyphosate" where it remained until just the other night, when I made the case that they are not synonymous. The new "Glyphosate based herbicides" popped up right in the middle of an ongoing conversation without allowing for any input from the community. As an administrator, I would expect you to take issue with both of these (successful) attempts to circumvent the normal process of discussion/gaining consensus. petrarchan47คุก 10:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@Petrarchan47: I want to be absolutely clear about this: Above, you said: Your suggestion that the addition of 'negative' information about Monsanto or any of their products is a bad thing, regardless of its prominence in RS, proves well my original point. Editing with the goal of protecting Monsanto is antithetical to building a NPOV encyclopedia and in a sane world, should be grounds for a topic ban. Are you saying that I have taken the position that adding "negative" information about Monsanto is something that I oppose, that I am editing with the goal of protecting Monsanto, and that I should therefore be topic banned? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Petrarchan47, not only did Tryptofish not say that, they didn't even describe the positions of others as such. They described concerns by others of something much more extreme than that happening. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn

In a previous section I noted that Jeremy Corbyn was being targeted by the Act.IL network. Now, in the run-up to the British election, a huge chunk of his article is taken up by overblown "anti-Semitic" allegations; the largest of these is that by attending a wreath-laying for one group of Palestinians at a cemetery, he was really attending a wreath-laying for Black September because Daily Mail printed pictures showing the covered meeting area at the cemetery where he was holding the wreath while listening to someone talk was closer to their grave. Also, he said that someone, not with his involvement, laid a wreath for people killed in Paris in 1991, which is taken (per Sky News) as clear indication that he laid a wreath for a Black September terrorist killed in 1992. And so on... look at Jeremy Corbyn and its history and decide for yourself. I am starting to have misgivings whether ordinary Wikipedians are remotely prepared to hold their own against foreign troll farms trying to influence elections in any country. Wnt (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

this comment sits perfectly in reflection of the above thread, it's not an outside attack at all, the attacking nature of the corbyn biography and the trump biography are simply a reflection of this wikipedias bias, NPOV and CONSENSUS are false flags here. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Where on earth are you getting "In the run up to the British election" from? The next British election is scheduled for 5 May 2022, about as far off as you can get.2.98.249.62 (talk) 08:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Parts of the British media have whipped up a hoo-ha over this, but it isn't in dispute that Jeremy Corbyn has attended events with members of Palestinian organisations. Corbyn's comment that he was present at the wreath laying but was not involved [25] reminded me of Bill Clinton's famous "didn't inhale" comments about marijuana use at university.[26] Corbyn may not have inhaled when he met various members of Palestinian organisations or shared a platform with them, but this has led to scrutiny, much of it by papers such as the Daily Mail which obviously hate him.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit-conflict)That entire first section of Jeremy Corbyn#Allegations of antisemitism and responses on his alleged anti-semitism and defense is suspect. The first paragraph is nearly all WP:OR of motions from Parliament with no citations of secondary sources. The second section is based almost entirely, if not entirely, on an editorial from the editorial board of a Jewish newspaper rather than focusing on what secondary sources say about that editorial's significance. Seems like the editors of that section need to read WP:RS (and WP:OR) and or at least find some before adding more of their personal opinions about the candidate to the section. There is WP:RS out there. [27][28][29]. Would you like me to post this at the article? --David Tornheim (talk) 08:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that a lot of the things that the media is dragging up now occurred several years ago when Corbyn was regarded as a left wing backbench MP with practically zero chance of becoming Labour Party leader, let alone Prime Minister. The wreath laying in Tunisia was in 2014, and the "British Zionists" comment in 2013.[30] Some people have been raiding the archive to find this stuff and get worked up over it, but it was all reported at the time.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits (can be argued either way), Corbyn/Labour's antisemitism crisis has been front page news in the UK for well over a year and is covered internationally - e.g. New Yorker, NY Times, Washington Post, Der Spiegel, and many many others.... This has become a polling issue in the UK, per a recent poll [31] - "34% think Labour tolerates antisemitism, while 33% think Corbyn is antisemitic". If at all our current article downplays this issue - e.g. it is out of the lede - and considering Corbyn is seen by some as an "existential threat",[32], [33] and the vast amount of continuing coverage then this should be in the lede.Icewhiz (talk) 09:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Confirmation bias. Count Iblis (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, when a user is in trouble here their bias is investigated, when users comment, a quality editor, the wp:npov position should overide their bias, have a look at their contribution history to evaluate their comment. Sadly many wikipedia editors are simply pushing their bias as much as they can, in total violation of neutral editing. Luckily I don't need to bother naming them, they all know who they are, they are too plentiful to mention anyways. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Try to rise above yourselves and edit from a wp:npov position, that is what will truly make this project great, all else , all other editing is destructive. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

This Liberal Carried an American Flag to Protest Fascism in Portland. Antifa Cracked His Head Open.

"Welch was one of hundreds of progressive Portlanders who had turned out to oppose the right-wing rally held at the Tom McCall Waterfront Park."

"With pride he clutched his U.S. flag as he moved among the crowd of like-thinking demonstrators."

"Soon a group of black-clad anti-fascist protesters, also known as antifa, demanded he lose the flag, calling it a fascist symbol. Welch refused, and a tug-of-war ensued."

"It ended with Welch taking a club to the back of the head, lying on the ground in a pool of his own blood."

Source: The Oregonian [34][35]

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

At the 2017 rally (Aug. 15, 2017) in Charlottesville, VA with Antifa,[36] a man carrying a Confederate battle flag was nearly dragged down a cement staircase backward, by a woman quietly clutching the battle flag (behind his back), at the protest over a statue of Robert E. Lee, who worked for years to end the U.S. Civil War as an "honorable peace" to end the national devastation on both sides, despite the recent notorious burning of Atlanta mills, homes or railroads, South Carolina, and North Carolina, where a woman witnessed the burning of Carolina towns or plantations and was sickened to see the hated U.S. flag raised above the statehouse amid the burning countryside. I don't know how WP can handle these cases of people upset about someone with a flag. Perhaps a page named "Flags used at notorious events" could document and compare these issues so that more readers can see how people, on all sides, can feel hostility about flags. Maybe start with a source which mentions various flags, and then cite related sources. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

All very interesting, Guy and Wiki77, as sad tales of our troubled times. But what is the Wikipedia connection?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

There is a somewhat roundabout connection in that we still accept the Southern Poverty Law Center as a reliable source for claims that some group is a hate group or that some town contains a hate group despite them being fine with Antifa.

• What Happens When Your Town Lands on the Hate Map
• How Did Maajid Nawaz End Up on a List of 'Anti-Muslim Extremists'?
• Has a Civil Rights Stalwart Lost Its Way?
• Southern Poverty Law Center Gets Creative to Label 'Hate Groups'
• ‘Essentially a Fraud’
• A Demagogic Bully

--Guy Macon (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

" roundabout connection" <-- that's not a "roundabout connection", that's an "idiotic non-sequitur". The hell does SPLC have to do with anything that happened at the Portland rally?Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Have you ever explained how Antifa is organized racialism or racism or interested in inherent-characteristic? Aren't there organizations or experts that deal with anarchists or anarcho-terrorists or anti-fascists or communists -- SPLC is not for everything you don't like -- or go to ADL, or someone else for your Antifa fix, SPLC is not some all-encompassing leviathan. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what I do and don't like. The SPLC is not a reliable source for labeling anyone or anything a hate group. For the real hate groups, there are plenty of sources, and we should use them instead of the SPLC. If the SPLC is the only source, (Examples: Gurnee, Illinois[37] and Amana, Iowa [38][39]) then Wikipedia should not repeat the claim from the SPLC because it is an unreliable source. Reliable sources don't list a town as containing a hate group based upon nothing but a message on a Nazi website by a user called "concerned troll", and reliable sources don't stick to their story despite a total lack of any evidence that it is true. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Gurnee, Illinois? Amana, Iowa? Neither article mentions anything about the SPLC or Antifa - you posted here about Antifa because we don't mention the SPLC in our articles, having nothing to do with Antifa? That's all non-sequitur. As to reliable sources in Wikipedia, we note in our policies and guidelines that reliable sources are sometimes mistaken, it does not make them broadly not WP:RS, just not used where they are mistaken. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: your first POLITICO source explains that Gurnee was removed from SPLC's annual Hate Map the year after their local government and police were unable to corroborate the alleged KKK activity, as was Amana (their neo-nazi book club having been reclassified as a statewide group.) Doesn't that make them more of a reliable source, not less? 107.77.165.9 (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Nope. It makes them less reliable. A reliable source does not stand by its error and then back down later in cases where there is zero evidence for their claim. A reliable source that has zero evidence that a group actually exists doesn't keep saying that is does exist, just not in the town where they originally said it existed. A reliable source admits that the group never existed and prints a retraction. Please remember, there has never existed a shred of evidence that the Iowa Stormer Bookclub ever existed. It was a fabrication posted on a Nazi website by an anonymous user calling himself "concerned troll" A reliable source would never have used concerned troll as a source, and they sure as hell wouldn't be sticking by their claim that the Iowa Stormer Bookclub exists years later. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that SPLC is "fine with" Antifa, other than fans of fascism beating up on them for not succumbing to the fallacy of false equivalence? SPLC made an error with Nawaz, and have admitted it. Being fallible is part of human nature. Accepting when you have mad a mistake is a sign of reliability, not the opposite - it's only in TrumpWorld™ where anyone is infallible and their pronouncements automatically render contradictory facts "fake news". Guy (Help!) 16:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

43 people died in the Italian Ponte Morandi collapse after antifa protestors removed all the flags from the bridge. Gamaliel (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

What? as they say at Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Didn't you know that flags are the only thing that prevents most bridges from collapsing?[40] --Guy Macon (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Isn't there some sort of blog that this irrelevant rambling could be posted on, rather than it clogging up Jimbo's talk page? By the way, we have somewhere to discuss reliable sources, which surprisingly is called the reliable sources noticeboard. Black Kite (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

  Nooo, really?!?! (SCNR ) SoWhy 13:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand the purpose of appealing to Jimbo. What would you do if you found that there was a consensus to violate one of Wikipedia's core policies?

The fact that the SPLC is not a reliable source for "hate group" labels is easily demonstrated:

• September 26, 2016: On the neo-Nazi website The Daily Stormer a user with the screen name "Concerned Troll" posted "The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub was a success!". This is the only evidence that the SPLC has ever provided backing up their claim that the hate group actually exists.

• August 23, 2017: In the face of mounting criticism in the nationwide press, the SPLC stands by their claim, still refuses to provide any evidence that any group named "The Daily Stormer Book Club" actually exists other that the post by Concerned Troll in The Daily Stomer.

• August 28, 2017: The SPLC now says that the The Daily Stormer Book Club is a "statewide" group, still refuses to provide any evidence that the group actually exists.

• Multiple reporters from the Iowa City Press-Citizen and other Iowa newspapers and news TV shows have searched and searched for any evidence that The Daily Stormer Book Club has ever had a meeting in Amana or anywhere else in Iowa. Despoite repeated requests, the SPLC refuses to provide evidence backing up their claim and refuses to retract their new "statewide" claim.

The fact that there is a consensus to consider the SPLC a reliable source for "hate group" labels is also easily demonstrated:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 22#Southern Poverty Law Center
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 26#Southern Poverty Law Center
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 48#Southern Poverty Law Center (again) & Rousas John Rushdoony
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 127#Is an SPLC intelligence report a reliable source for information about the men's rights movement?
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 128#Southern Poverty Law Center
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 130#Southern Poverty Law Center
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 208#Southern Poverty Law Center on Debbie Schlussel's Anti-Muslim stance
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 230#Southern Poverty Law Center As Source For Labeling Someone a White Supremacist
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 245#Southern Poverty Law Center
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#SPLC: not a reliable source

So we have a consensus that violates on of Wikipedia's core values -- exactly the kind of thing that is properly discussed on Jimbo's talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

It sounds more like you're displeased with WP:CONSENSUS. SPLC is reliable. It fits the criteria outlined at WP:RS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• So, what you are saying is that when an otherwise reliable source makes a single mistake, regardless of how much other demonstratedly reliable work they have done, that Wikipedia policy demands that we permanently remove them from consideration as a reliable source? Can you show me where in Wikipedia's core values this is written? Because I have never heard of it before. Even if we concede that the SPLC was mistaken about that one single "hate group" (and I'm not saying they were mistaken, I'm just conceding that point so that we don't have to debate it for the time being) how does that make them unreliable? Because Wikipedia consensus is that they are reliable. I don't see how you've established, as yet, that they are not. If we take your notion that the single example of a single mislabeled group as enough to throw them out as a source, then under that standard, there is likely no such thing as a reliable source. Which means we're screwed, because we now can't use anything. --Jayron32 15:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• One mistake? Have you been paying attention? It's mistake after mistake. Not only errors of commission (listing places, people and organizations as hate groups when they clearly are not) but also errors of omission (pointedly refusing to list some well-known hate groups), with strong evidence that the decision to list or not to list is based upon agreement/disagreement with political positions that have nothing to do with hate. And the word "mistake" isn't quite right. This is purposeful. Reliable sources retract mistakes. They don't double down and stand by their claims while refusing to provide any evidence when legitimate reporters ask for it. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• So you say. How do we know that you are right and everyone else is wrong. That's the rub here. You don't get to be right because you say so. By what standard are we to decide if your assessment of these situations is correct? --Jayron32 16:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• "mounting criticism in the nationwide press" = a couple articles in Breitbart and some Iowa papers. Gamaliel (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• Not our call. SPLC is widely cited as an authority on hate groups, we merely reflect that real-world view. Guy (Help!) 15:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, to parse Guy Macon's argument to what it really is behind all the inflammatory rhetoric and hyperbole it's simple the claim that "SPLC is not reliable because they don't list Antifa as a hate group". Now, that's a pretty illogical argument on its face. What determines reliability is what an organization DOES (fact check, editorial control, etc.) not what it DOES NOT do (it doesn't write about something I want it to write about). But, even if that isn't obvious (which I think it ought to be to anyone who's been around long enough to have actually read WP:RS) there's also... well, the explanation itself provided by SPLC. Quick answer is that the SPLC doesn't list Antifa as a hate group for the same reason they don't list various violent right wing "Patriot" groups as hate groups, as long as those groups' violence is motivated by just anti-government ideology and not by racial or other forms of prejudice. Propensity for violence alone doesn't satisfy the criteria for "hate group". This argument is sort of like claiming that the New York Times is not a reliable sources because they don't cover stories about Pokemon and Minecraft.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

And yet pretty much everyone who hears about that neo-nazi group that has a newsletter documenting every crime committed by a jew and ignoring all crime committed by non-jews -- even if a jew and a non-jew partner up and commit a crime together -- sees the problem with that. Nobody says "hey, they don't have to list crimes by non-jews They also don't write about Pokemon and Minecraft". --Guy Macon (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

To be fair the NY Times does cover Pokemon and Minecraft. PackMecEng (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

yes, i actually know that but was wondering if anyone'd noticeVolunteer Marek (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Besides, "antifa" isn't a group, so how could you list it? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, on that point, it certainly is a group. It doesn't meet the definition of a hate group, but it clearly is a group. That is a collection of people with a shared ideology and symbolism, and a means to coordinate. That doesn't mean that it is a hate group, mind you, but unless you're working from a no true Scotsman definition of group, it's a group. --Jayron32 16:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The assault was carried out by Black bloc anarchists which represent a small minority of "antifa" and other demonstators. Indeed the SPLC has mentioned violence by them. ('The masked, black-clad “anti-fascists” led chants to interrupt the rallies and began scuffling with the red-hatted objects of their protest.'[41]) These anarchists are not however a "group," but individuals who come together at demonstrations. (See Who's Afraid of the Black Blocs?: Anarchy in Action around the World, pp. 1-2.[42])

Jayron, probably better to say that the SPLC only classifies organized groups. Anti-fascist demonstrators do not have a shared ideology and symbolism or any other than ad hoc communication.

TFD (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Some do and some don't. Antifa is a group. Whether a) this specific event was done by Antifa the group or b) This specific event was done by unorganized anti-facist activists are different questions. Not all anti-facist demonstrators are part of Antifa. --Jayron32 16:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

My point is more that (for the sake of argument) liberals can't be a hate group. The Democratic National Committee can, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

If you mean a philosophy can't be a hate group, but an organization can be, I agree with you. I trust that you aren't claiming that left-leaning groups can't be classified as hate groups. But that's not what I think you mean.--Jayron32 17:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

No. You could certainly claim the "Cascadia Antifa Defense Association" (or whatever) as a hate group, if they fit the description - I'm just arguing that "antifa", as I understand it, isn't organized enough to point to any one grouping and say "they are a hate group". All you can do is point at the black-masked folks in the street and yell "ANTIFA!", whether it actually applies or not. It's about as useful as pointing at them and yelling "ANARCHISTS!" --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd say its a grey area, though I can understand your point there. The Antifa movement is more organized than just a label for far-left violent groups, but it's less than a formal organization. Various Antifa groups do coordinate under the Antifa label, they are not all fully independent with no association. There is not a hard, bright line distinction between "is an group" and "is not a group", and Antifa lies within the space covered by that fuzzy line. I'd say you've made a good argument for why they might not be considered a "group", though I could see other valid arguments for classifying them as a "group". Regardless, its a side discussion here, AFAIK, neither Antifa (as a movement, or whatever you want to call it), nor any of the groups that affiliate with it, meet the express "hate group" definition as put out by SPLC. --Jayron32 18:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Broadly, it appears to come down to disagreement with the SPLC about how they define hate group: should their focus be on immutable characteristics and civil rights, and on balancing religious pluralism with civil rights, or something else (like Antifa political violence) - an editor, as a libertarian, or a religious-moralist, or a law-and-orderist, or some other contradictory POV, may well disagree with the SPLC, or want to tell the SPLC what to do, but that's not relevant to writing the encyclopedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Per Hate group, "The SPLC's definition of a "hate group" includes any group with beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people—particularly when the characteristics being maligned are immutable." Which is to say, a group is a hate group when they attack an "immutable" characteristic of another group of people (skin color, ethnic origin, gender identity, sexual orientation, etc.) and not merely because the group is violent, even violent against another group, where the target characteristic is not immutable (political affiliation, choices they make, ideologies they follow). That does NOT mean that not being classified as such by the SPLC means that said group is otherwise perfectly OK (for any given definition of OK). That doesn't mean that Antifa (for example, which keeps coming up) is somehow entirely benign and without fault, it just means that they don't meet the SPLC definition of a hate group. --Jayron32 17:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, but note there also seems to be blur in this and these discussions between 'hate grouping' and other issues which the SPLC may speak about, that might be called, things like 'islamophobia', or something-else like, 'immigrant-dehumanization.' All parties that disagree with its 'hate groupings', or that something is 'islamaphobia', or 'immigrant dehumanization' may well take issue with the SPLC, and even join together as the enemy of my enemy, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Not having a reputation for fact checking is a problem. Refusing to publish corrections is a problem. Relying on an anonymous post to a neo-nazi website as your only evidence is a problem. This isn't a disagreement with the SPLC about how they define a hate group. If the First Iowa Stormer Bookclub actually existed we would most likely all agree that it was a hate group based upon the relationship with The Daily Stormer, which everyone agrees is a hate group. But one prerequisite to being a hate group is that the group has to actually exist. This one doesn't. And yet the SPLC insists that it not only exists, but that it is a statewide group. Again, this is solely based upon an anonymous post to a neo-nazi website by someone posting as "concerned troll".

And least anyone think that this is an isolated incident, the SPLC falsely labeled Ayaan Hirsi Ali as an "anti-Muslim extremist". Her crime? Criticizing female genital mutilation, which she herself was subjected to before fleeing Somalia.

Still think that the SPLC is a reliable source? Read Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Op-Ed in the New York Times, then come back and try to justify the way the SPLC treated her. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Does the SPLC make mistakes? Do they sometimes do the wrong thing? No one here has argued that they don't. No one is disputing a single thing you are bringing up. We're all saying "yes, we know those have happened". The question then becomes "do those things substantively affect the reliability of the SPLC". That's a judgement call of the community. There is no way to come up with any objective measure. The community may or may not decide that these are substantive problems with the SPLC. You are free to express your opinion on the matter, and you have done so. However, the problem is that because you have an opinion, you behave as though people with a different opinion don't count. That's not how consensus works. Your feelings on the matter do not make your consensus of one the only voice that matters. --Jayron32 18:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

" This isn't a disagreement with the SPLC about how they define a hate group" - Dude. Read the title of this sub section which YOU created. I don't understand how you can pretend now that you didn't say what you said when it's right there in big ol' bold letters.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

And this part: "Her crime? Criticizing female genital mutilation, which she herself was subjected to before fleeing Somalia."? Not in the source. You made that shit up. If you want to be taken seriously, which, you know, probably too late for that, you might start with... not making shit up. SPLC most certainly did NOT list Ayaan Hirsi Ali as an "extremist" because she criticized female genital mutilation. Oh well, I'll just say it. Stop lying.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

You shouldn't call someone a liar when the facts are on his side. It makes you look like a foolish person who doesn't check his facts.

From the SPLC:

"In 2015, Hirsi Ali spoke at ACT for America’s national conference. As part of its ongoing efforts to vilify Muslims and their faith, ACT and other anti-Muslim groups often try to paint the practice of FGM as being intrinsically part of Islam despite it being a cultural issue whose origins predate Islam and whose victims have included women of Christian, Jewish, Muslim, animist and other traditional religious backgrounds. Nevertheless voices from the anti-Muslim hate movement continue to push the false narrative that FGM is practice unique and intrinsic to Islam."[43]

And before you claim that the SPLC isn't attacking Hirsi Ali because she speaks out against FGM but rather because she falsely links it to Islam , read our article on Religious views on female genital mutilation, and especially the scholarly citations that article uses. That article says "FGM is practiced predominantly within certain Muslim societies", "FGM was introduced in Southeast Asia by the spread of Shafi'i version of Islamic jurisprudence, which considers it obligatory", "FGM is found mostly within and adjacent to Muslim communities", and "The Maliki, Hanafi and Hanbali schools of Islamic jurisprudence view [FGM] as makrama for women ("noble", as opposed to obligatory). For the Shafi'i school it is obligatory (wājib)." (Note that our article on Shafi‘i says that it is predominantly found in Somalia, among other countries where it is predominant.) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I don't know if you're being indigenous or simply lack reading comprehension skill. You claimed Hirsi Ali was listed by the SPLC *because* she opposed FGM. That's completely false. Now that it's been pointed out that it's false, repeating the claim, while knowing it's false, is lying. Neither the NYT source doesn't say ANYTHING about FGM. SPLC explicitly says it was because she spoke for ACT. She was listed by the SPLC as an anti-Muslim extremist because she spoke at a conference organized by ACT for America, which is indeed an anti-Muslim extremist group (and a pretty odious group overall). That's it. You can argue that she made a bad judgement call and that speaking at a meeting organized by a bunch of racist shits shouldn't be enough to get one listed as an "extremist" but that's quite different than falsely accusing SPLC of doing something it didn't do. So. Stop digging here buddy. You lied and now you're doubling down because... I don't know, you think we're incapable of reading or something.

And then you throw in some stuff about our FGM article to sort of cloud the issue and cover up your false accusation. Dude, how long have you been on Wikipedia? Have you ever in all those years bothered reading our policy on WP:SYNTH? You take two different pieces of information ("SPLC listed Hirsi Ali" and "Hirsi Ali is critical of FGM") and put them together in a completely false synthesized statement ("SPLC listed Hirsi Ali because she is critical of FGM"). Man, we should take that and include it in our WP:SYNTH article as a perfect example of what NOT to do. Seriously, how is it possible that you've been on Wikipedia for 12 (or 8, depending how you count) years and lack such basic understanding of our policies? Volunteer Marek 18:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

In what way is your disagreement with what SPLC says about ACT relevant? Are you actually trying here to dispute FGM as a "cultural issue" or that "it's victims have included women of Christian, Jewish, Muslim, animist and other traditional religious backgrounds" or its practice "pre-dating Islam"? Is it your contention that all in Islam find FGM "intrinsic and unique" to them? Are you arguing that those who say they are in Islam and they oppose FGM are not actually in Islam? Or are you arguing that those who say they are Christian and practice it, are secretly Muslim? SPLC also describes the women as "victims", do you disagree with that? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I am saying that:

• Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not an "Anti-Muslim Extremist".
• The SPLC called here an anti-muslim extremist, and stuck by that claim until they were sued, at which point they dropped the claim.
• The SPLC specifically mentioned Ayaan Hirsi Ali's opposition to female genital mutilation as evidence that she is an anti-muslim extremist.
• This is one of multiple examples where the SPLC incorrectly labeled someone as "extremist" "hate group" etc.

If you wish to dispute the well-cited claims that "FGM is practiced predominantly within certain Muslim societies", "FGM was introduced in Southeast Asia by the spread of Shafi'i version of Islamic jurisprudence, which considers it obligatory", "FGM is found mostly within and adjacent to Muslim communities", or "The Maliki, Hanafi and Hanbali schools of Islamic jurisprudence view [FGM] as makrama for women ("noble", as opposed to obligatory). For the Shafi'i school it is obligatory (wājib)", I suggest that you go to our Religious views on female genital mutilation article and attempt to make those "corrections". --Guy Macon (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not disputing anything, I'm asking. So, you don't dispute, FGM as a "cultural issue" or that "its victims have included women of Christian, Jewish, Muslim, animist and other traditional religious backgrounds" or its practices "pre-date Islam". And you agree that FGM is not "intrinsic and unique" to Islam nor that Muslims that oppose FGM are actually Muslim. Or that those who are Christians and practice it, are not secretly Muslim, they are Christians, and you don't dispute the women are "victims". All that seems in accord with your sources, none of which you say, say it is "intrinsic and unique". As for the rest, so you disagree with what is "extreme", does that mean you cannot follow NPOV, because sometimes you do have to write about things you don't agree with in Wikipedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

What we've got here is a failure to communicate: https://i.imgur.com/6Iok03F.jpg 2A02:6080:0:0:0:1:1081:A2D5 (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Question for Alan. Of the multiple, documented cases of FGM in the US and UK, what percent involved Muslims, Christians and Jews, respectively? I'll give you time to research but if you pretty much know the answer without having to, that should tell you something. 2A02:6080:0:0:0:1:1081:A2D5 (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Meaningless without consideration of the cultural landscape. If all people of tribe X practice a particular ritual, and all members of tribe X are Methylated Wesletarians, does that make the practice an inherently Methylated Wesletarian one? Venn diagrams are your friend here. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Leaving aside that it's often impossible to distinguish culture and religion, whether with Saudi Muslims, Italian Roman Catholics or Congolese Christians, the distinction between causation and correlation is irrelevant from a policy perspective; correlation alone is sufficient. 2A02:6080:0:0:0:1:1081:A2D5 (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Again this is blurring of various issues, but in an environment where all RS are acknowledged to be regularly mistaken, your critique is diffuse, as I recall there was a recent correction by the SPLC. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I get it. If I focus on one example it's "one mistake". If I talk about multiple examples I am "blurring various issues". Got it. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

It does not actually appear, you do get it, that 'you disagree with a some arguments or conclusions' from sources, is just not a policy/guideline based argument for all things, nor it it good logic, 'wrong' even in some things, is not 'wrong' in all things'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Care for a list of times when The Daily Mail or infowars met your "'wrong' even in some things, is not 'wrong' in all things' criteria?" Even the worst sources are often right. The SPLC is wrong often enough to no longer be considered a reliable source for labeling people as extremists. If they really are extremists, we should be able to find other sources -- sources that have a track record of fact checking, that give sources for their claims, and that print retractions when it becomes blindingly obvious that they got something wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

So, the community does not agree with you, and you do not agree with the SPLC. Well, we all of us sometimes have disagreements with the community and with sources, that's life on Wikipedia. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Really? You have evidence that they admit that "The Daily Stormer Book Club" doesn't exist? Please cite your source. Or are you referring to the "correction" that only happened after Maajid Nawaz sued them and they settled by paying him US$3.375 million? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

What? Where is "The Daily Stormer Book Club" discussed on Wikipedia. But if its existence ever came-up on Wikipedia, Wikipedia would relate the evidence of its existence and evidence of its non-existence per V/NPOV/OR. We would not rely on what you like and don't like, nor on editorializing (eg. something is not state-wide just because it is placed with a state). As for correction, indeed, publishers of work that back what they say with their money, try to be correct and make correction when they are not correct. That's true of all RS. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I can't find the section of our reliable sources policy which disqualifies sources from being used in articles based on your moral outrage. Gamaliel (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Faux News has made many more UNCORRECTED errors than SPLC. If any banning for distribution of bad info is going on, Fox first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• What Guy Macon left out, inexplicably, is that Skip Bayless, on ESPN, spoke really disrespectfully about Nick Saban, and even claimed that Jim Harbaugh is a better coach. AND YET WE CONTINUE TO CITE ESPN. (PS I'm not linking Nick Saban per WP:OVERLINK.) Drmies (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

You're obviously trying to provoke me into making a BLP violation with some creative wikilinking for your mention of that person so you have an excuse to block me before 11/24 rolls (no not that kind of roll) around. Volunteer Marek 22:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Trust me, Volunteer "War Eagle" Marek, I'll find an excuse to block you. And if you touch Nick Saban, ima get the entire ArbCom to come down on you: I got tapes of our secret meetings in Courcelles' hot tub, so they better do what I ask. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• The blind support on this wikipedia for SPLC and antifa, both of which imo are as bad as the people they attack is simply a reflection of this wikipedia's general political leaning. This project should imo stop hiding behind NPOV and CONSENSUS and make an honest declaration so that readers are aware of its political leaning. Govindaharihari (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't support antifa, I broadly support the SPLC, but I don't "blindly" support either. The thing you seem to be forgetting is that anti-fascist is what you are supposed to be. There was this whole war and everything. Bigotry against bigots is a considerably less pressing problem than bigotry against women, non-whites, the LGBT community, Muslims and all the other targets of the asshole alt-right. The fascists want the return of the total dominance of white men over society. Antifa want no more fascists. These two are not equal. So before you climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider Man, first check that it's not on fire. Guy (Help!) 07:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

We're all antifascists here, if you weren't aware. The issue is that they attack people who are not fascists – such as another antifascist demonstrator –, and if we're being liberal for a moment, that they attack anyone at all. Violence begets violence. With that whole war and everything, last I checked, the flag of the United States was flown in the fight against fascism, not for it. I'm tossing up whether to respond to that parroted last sentence (of the original)... hmm, sure: you've left out the alt-right's biggest and most reviled (by them) target, the Jewish people. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not convinced that everybody on Wikipedia is anti-fascist. We have a significant minority who support racist autocrats, for example. But I think you may be falling for another point of false equivalence. Fascists deliberately target minorities. Antifa has indeed attacked a few people who were not fascists, but the case in point looks a lot like mistaken identity. Turning up with an American flag to a fascist rally does sort of suggest you might be down with the whole fascist thing, after all. Not that I defend it. I do not advocate violence other than as part of a righteous war/revolution and even then I'm ambivalent about it. The point is about the aims of the groups. Antifa is a group that opposes fascism, and which has some members who are violent idiots. The alt-right is a movement that is driven by fear and hatred of anyone other than straight Christian white men - the single most privileged group in America. Treating them as equivalent, and specifically labelling SPLC as unreliable because it criticises the alt-right while not calling Antifa a hate group, is white privilege, whataboutism and false equivalence.

It is possible for apparent whataboutism to be a valid critique. Tommy Robinson fulminates against "Muslim grooming gangs", a significant but restricted problem, but has said absolutely nothing, as far as I can see, about the Catholic church's decades-long practice of protecting child rapists. If you're looking for religions that sexually abuse children, Islam is nowhere near the top of the list. His attacks on "Muslim grooming gangs" are transparently racially motivated, and "what about the Catholics" is an entirely valid rebuttal. Guy (Help!) 08:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I had meant in this thread. I've encountered a couple of those fascists that reside on Wikipedia. I wasn't planning on getting intot the SPLC, but: [S]pecifically labelling SPLC as unreliable because it criticises the alt-right - Maajid Nawaz, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Sam Harris are alt-right? A Muslim, an ex-Muslim, and a Jew walk into a white supremacist's bar. They don't walk out. I suspect that has a bigger impact on SPLC criticism than, say, Richard Spencer or Jared Taylor, the very popular prominent figures within mainstream politics that they are (yes, they have their following, it's a small one). Mr rnddude (talk) 08:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant to the question as posed. Criticising objectively terrible people (e.g. neo-Nazis) does not confer any obligation to criticise everyone that people butthurt by criticism of neo-Nazis demands is lumped into the same "fine people on both sides" basket. Guy (Help!) 17:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

That makes no sense, Wikipedia should not abandon NPOV or Consensus, because you don't like NPOV or Consensus. Blind Antifa support? Blind SPLC support? Have you considered perhaps you are blind to NPOV or Consensus, or are just making stuff up about others, you know nothing about? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Userpage protected

Hey, Jimbo. I just semi-ed your userpage for a bit in the hopes that that vandal will get bored and go away. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

What is your view on people editing your user page in other languages. I tried updating your page in Spanish to the current version and got ticked off. Do you have a view on this? ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

It seems fine to translate it into other languages, I don't see how anyone could really object?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2018

• From the editor: Today's young adults don't know a world without Wikipedia

• Interview: 2018 Wikimedian of the Year, Farkhad Fatkullin

• News and notes: Flying high; low practice from Wikipedia 'cleansing' agency; where do our donations go? RfA sees a new trend

• In the media: Quicksilver AI writes articles

• Discussion report: Drafting an interface administrator policy

• Featured content: Featured content selected by the community

• Special report: Wikimania 2018

• Traffic report: Aretha dies – getting just 2,000 short of 5 million hits

• Technology report: Technical enhancements and a request to prioritize upcoming work

• Gallery: Leapfrog, historic Thai cave, and a rhythmic beat

• Recent research: Wehrmacht on Wikipedia, neural networks writing biographies

• Humour: Signpost editor censors herself

• Essay: Principle of Some Astonishment

• From the archives: Playing with Wikipedia words

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Crowdsourcing is good for some purposes and bad for others

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

(Personal attack removed) Michael Hardy (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• "All six had personally attacked me, calling my mentally deranged or retarded and the like" - Diffs or redaction please. Black Kite (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• As no diffs were forthcoming, I have RPA'd the whole section as it was one long PA and didn't advance anything useful that hasn't been already stated. Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• I've gone back to find the ARBCOM case that was levied against MH by Boing! said Zebedee: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael_Hardy. I am stunned not by the similarity of the cause of that case: ... only for Michael Hardy to make clearly false claims about what MjolnirPants had said, calling him "a hard-core bully". I blocked for 31 hours for the personal attacks ... and You can see from the above links that Michael Hardy is not listening to the large number of people advising him to drop the stick, and yesterday he repeated his accusations of bullying here. I am stunned by the locus of the dispute that started that case: This all started as a dispute over the article Ancestral health created by User:Michael Hardy. You are re-initiating the very dispute that started a months long ARBCOM case, and you are, once again, refusing to drop the stick and continuing to double down. Before this becomes ARBCOM 2 Electric Boogalo: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy#Michael Hardy (Reminded). Mr rnddude (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Black Kite, I know nothing about this and never had any communication with Hardy, afaik, but I do not see where this could be called a personal attack? and an hour and 15 minutes does not seem very long to wait for a response. Maybe his being blocked is a good reason but what you removed was not a personal attach, imo, plus Jimbo seems to want to hear him out. I, personally, had never thought of Wikipedia as a crowd sourcing vehicle so that in itself made his comment here thought provoking, for me, at least. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

He had commented here during that 1hr15. I am, actually, trying to stop Michael from getting blocked again - the section I mentioned in italics above is clearly a PA if it isn't true - and I can find no evidence that it is. Not only that, but he called those six editors bullies again, which is what he got blocked for in the first place... Black Kite (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, the whole thing seems quite sad :( Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to shut this down now as it seems to not be productive. Michael, can you email me? I'm interested and sympathetic, but there seems to be a lot going on here that I haven't had time to understand.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comment for Russian Wikinews

Jimmy, there we interviewed wikimedians from different countries and continents in Russian Wikinews: 1, 2, 3, 4.

There wikimedians answer the question, which they are usually asked by people who are far from our movement: "Why on Earth you are spending your time, contributing to Wikipedia? Why do you think it's worth your time?"

Today we are preparing the last part of the series of articles. We will be grateful if you can answer too.

We kindly request you to shoot my way a few sentences by 00:00 UTC. Sorry for such a short notice. We'll be glad to include your words as well. --sasha (krassotkin) 13:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I personally support this joint effort of Bashkir Wikimedians' leader Rustam Nuryev & Sasha Krassotkin of Russian Wikinews by translating all non-Russian language responses.--Frhdkazan (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I also ask you to answer. --Рөстәм Нурыев (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I may have missed the deadline? In any event, one thing I would say is that when we look at the state of the world today, it will come as no surprise to Russian Wikipedians and Russian readers of Wikinews that there is a lot of demonization of other cultures. Everything bad online these days is being blamed on "Russian trolls" and so forth. Well, leaving aside all the things that actually are going on in the world with state-level cyber activities, I think that Russian people - especially Russian geeks - are like people (and especially geeks) everywhere: we mostly want to share knowledge honestly, to understand the world, to try to make a better place for us all. And we're humans with foibles who make mistakes and errors from time to time. So for me, this is why I spend my time contributing to Wikipedia - it is a place where I feel it is possible to have hope for humanity in the future.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you, these are right words. Done: n:ru:Зачем тебе нужна Википедия (часть 5). --sasha (krassotkin) 02:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

How/whether? to expand "history" section of Skull and Bones

Jimbo, is there a way, without being deleted under the "conspiracy theory" taboo, to expand or fork the Skull and Bones article to include its long history...150 years..of having members who have played substantial roles in engineering wars...in numbers far beyond statistical probabilities (they only recruit 15 members per year world wide) We have a large [44] "history" section for Freemasons and a short [45] section for Skull and Bones. There is ample RS reporting that since it inception, members of the "society" have played substantial roles in engineering wars, e.g. in this [46] Guardian report, Prescott Bush, Averell Harriman, and Knight Wooley were all members of the society. Then the founder, William Huntington Russell, is RS reported to have financed John Brown's insurrection and established the Republican Party and financed Lincoln's candidacy, all 3 of which were major aspects of the lead up to the civil war. Then we have Harriman and William and McGeorge Bundy pushing for the assassination of a S. Vietnamese president and coaching Johnson, all of which maximized US involvement in the Vietnam war. Not to mention GHW's double cross of Saddam by greenlighting his invasion of Kuwait and George W.'s "Iraq has WMDs" trick for invading Iraq and John Kerry's manipulating the Ukraine.

I would gladly write such a new article, e.g. "History of Skull and Bones Members involvement in USA wars" if I thought it had any chance at all of not being quickly deleted as "conspiracy theory". What do you think? Is it a historical account worth having in the Encyclopedia assuming, as I say, there are Reliable Sources backing up all content? Nocturnalnow (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure how such a thing would be possible without substantial WP:SYNTH unless reliable sources tie the school club to the execution of wars explicitly. Simonm223 (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

A note though that your Guardian source is not compelling; all it mentions is that three generations of the Bush family were in the same student club. It makes no mention of that club having any involvement in the starting of wars. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey, are you trying to deny that Shrub was a paid-up member of the Illuminati (Military Industrial Complex branch)? Guy (Help!) 16:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Naw. I'm just dubious that his involvement in the Military Industrial Complex has anything to do with his hereditary membership for a Yale student club for rich assholes. Simonm223 (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Barring the insult, which may well be deserved but seems unnecessary, I agree. The interesting thing about Skull and Bones is probably how many Presidents and other politically powerful people have been a part of it. That's an interesting story about "old boy's networks" and privilege and power to be sure. Adding onto it a hypothesis about "starting wars" would require speculation beyond what I think you can find in sources. (I'm no expert, though: if there have been credible histories about credible leaks of secret doctrines which show that the secret purpose of the organization is to start wars, that's a different matter. I don't think that's the case.)

It's all about reliable sources.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, Jimbo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia has resisted information warfare, but could it fight off a proper attack?

Wikipedia has resisted information warfare, but could it fight off a proper attack?, in the New Statesman. Jimmy - any comment?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• WP already in POV-warfare versus propaganda: I'll leave space for Jimbo to answer above, but that report presented some valid concerns. However, at the typical editor level, WP is already handling POV-warfare and is very tedious to update, due to numerous squabbles about format, wp:UNDUE weight, wp:BLPVIO, wp:DE, wp:3RR, wp:Canvas, "{{cn}}" citation needed, or even sources demanded within talk-pages, etc. Hence, it is actually quite difficult to substantially change major Wikipedia pages. I think the only real danger would be admins who scare editors on one side of a debate to back-off, using veiled threats of blocks or topic-bans, whereby articles can be more quickly slanted without the typical delays over consensus-debates. Perhaps evil forces had already devised the wp:Topic ban process, years ago, in a long-term strategy to slant Wikipedia by thwarting experts who tried to resist balderdash added into pages. Anyway it certainly has worked to severely slant some pages. So, perhaps the main solution would be to have term-limits for admins, to easily desysop when suspected by the larger community, without having to somehow prove various admins are "sleeper spies" for corporate or international interests who wish to spread their own propaganda. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
• The Trolls from Olgino have made several appearances here which I've seen (as in: I've seen IP addresses geolocated to Olgino being used to to say incendiary things about American politics, with a decidedly right-wing slant, often in a way that makes it clear they are the same person as a different, more prolific IP that belonged to some sort of proxy in Europe or America). I'm quite sure there are more which I haven't seen. Plus there has been -for the past 1-2 years- a phenomenon whereby accounts that were registered, used and seemingly abandoned a decade ago suddenly show back up and start editing, and wouldn't you know it: they all say the same sorts of things the troll say. Almost as if those accounts were being bought, sold and traded.

In response to this piece, I would suggest that it's at least possible that WP has been the target of a concerted attack for some time, and that we're just not as aware of it due to the decentralized nature of the project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Or because it's been BAU since forever? I mean, seriously, anyone who watches articles on quackery, conspiracy theories, antivax bollocks, scams like the e-cat and so on will have toruble distinguishing these trolls from the normal everyday ones. Guy (Help!) 12:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

BAU? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

"Business as usual" if I am not mistaken? PackMecEng (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: sorry to tell you, but the "weaponized" anti-vaxers are largely from St. Petersburg. How many more of our perennial BAU controversies are Russian active measures? 107.77.165.1 (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Not hardly. Sure, some of them are, but what they were doing is merely amplifying existing home-grown fucknozzles. Guy (Help!) 18:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not similar to an organization like NATO, the arms race between hackers and such organization is not relevant to Wikipedia's cyber security. It's a bit analogous to the fact that insects do fine with only an innate immune system, as explained here. Count Iblis (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Except for Count Iblis's contribution, in general I agree with everything said here. There are lots of things that look really funny looking back a ways, and some things not so funny too. There is also lots of small stuff that is BAU (I like the acronym), and it's hard to distinguish between state-sponsored information warfare (SSIW) and our usual trolls. It's also hard to distinguish between SSIW and misguided patriots that have read too much propaganda.

It's also hard to decide what to do about it. Or even how an open project like ours could plan a response.

But please consider the following scenario. I'd guess people will argue whether this has a 5% chance of happening, or a 50% chance of happening, but I suspect you, Jimbo, would agree that it has some real chance of happening. In two years there is a big election. Some of the fake-news tactics that were used in the previous election will be tried again (and why shouldn't we expect this?) . Some websites will be "inoculated" against this fake-news and others won't have made any plans or preparation. So imagine a news story after the election headlined "Facebook and Twitter were prepared for the fake-news onslaught, Wikipedia and XXXXX weren't".

Shouldn't the Board of Trustees consider doing something to prevent that?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

We could start by locking down the enforcement of WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM and WP:SCANDAL and then strengthening all three to keep Wikipedia content as dispassionate as possible. Simonm223 (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

There is no problem here on Wikipedia, because long before fake news on social media became problem, Wikipedia had to deal with POV warriors. Note that Wikipedia was always focused on bringing reliable, verified information, while Facebook and Twitter are purely social media sites that don't have that focus. The Fake news is caused by the large fraction of the population who are poorly educated, who end up turning to social media to get their news. Count Iblis (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

There is certainly reason to believe it can: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• ...home-grown fucknozzles. This... Right here... This is poetry.

P.S. Guy, I said it's "possible". I don't particularly believe it myself. I just don't think the evidence is sufficient to rule it out. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I've also noticed all those sleepers. A hypothesis is that they may have moved elsewhere before (other Wikis and/or social networks where their POV could be posted) and have been canvassed as part of campaigns. However, some prolific LTA socks also tend do create account farms and return to old ones hoping to evade scrutiny... —PaleoNeonate – 10:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding: it's also possible that leaks from other websites and login bots managed to compromise a number of old accounts. At times we've seen a number of editors complain about warnings they received about other addresses attempting to login... —PaleoNeonate – 10:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I looked into the author of the New Statesman article, Carl Miller. He's

a researcher at Demos (UK think tank). Those folks likely run in the same intellectual circles as Jimbo, so I'll suggest that Jimbo try to make contact to see what Miller is talking about. Miller is something of an academic and has a new book related to the New Statesman article. I suspect that he'd be willing to suggest to Jimbo what might be done to help prevent the scenario described above. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Scibaby failed so how can anyone else succeed? Count Iblis (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't know anything about Scibaby until your post just now, but it looks like he's been somewhat successful from 2006 thru 2018 with 1,073 sockpuppets, and 223 more suspected. I don't consider this a success story for Wikipedia, nor evidence that there aren't more like him, or even more prolific, that haven't been caught. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

it looks like he's been somewhat successful from 2006 thru 2018 with 1,073 sockpuppets, and 223 more suspected. Umm, the very fact that you know that requires that Scibaby has not been successful with any of those accounts. Else you would not have been able to look up that info. QED. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

You're using a narrow metric of "success" defined as direct influence on content, and I'm not convinced that was Scibaby's goal (except maybe in his very earliest days). If you broaden "success" to include disruption, sowing dissent, and time wasting then Scibaby was much more successful.

A state actor or other agent could take a similar approach by dividing the community and wasting its time. And the real strength of Wikipedia is its community. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think they've been very successful at disrupting anything as evidenced by the fact that we're all still here, still editing away. Most of us don't even know anything about Scibaby (I never heard of them until this thread, and I've edited in climate change myself). As for time wasting: You pick any one of the most prolific good contributors, and I bet I could pull out just as much wasted time from their editing history in the form of ANI reports, AfDs and RfCs that go nowhere, mistakes that need to be undone, edits that just didn't look right and need tweaking, talk page comments that got a little too verbose, etc, etc. If we measure a troll's success by that metric, then we're all trolls. Pretty much the same goes for sowing dissent. Right off the top of my head, I can think of two recent (like: the past two days) situations that had good editors arguing with each other over something silly. Both instigated by good contributors, too.

I'm not saying it's not possible. In fact, I'm only saying that most of this is pure supposition: we don't know that we will be attacked like that. We don't know that we haven't already. We don't know how effective such an attack would be. We just don't know much of anything. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Climate change articles have not been affected, and that's because we stick to our core principles like verifiability from reliable sources. Any Scibaby sockpuppet gets caught simply because of editing against such rules. The fake news problem only affects those sites that don't have equivalent rules that make factchecking using reliable sources mandatory. But if the population at large does not value reliable news outlets, if they turn to social media sites to get their news from, then there is little we can do to stop Russia from manipulating public opinion. The problem isn't with social media, because people visit those sites deliberately. E.g. if Twitter were to change its rules making it more difficult for Trump to post some of his more outrageous comments, then Trump will find some other site to post his comments, say Instagram, and his followers will move there and CNN will start to report on his latest Instagram uploads and comments. Count Iblis (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Given the number of bikini-selfies I see on instagram, I hope to god that never comes to pass. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

(EC)The above begs the question, do we have any research on how long it takes to catch sockmasters? and how long they worked as regular editors before turning to the dark side?

I'm sure there are individual cases that would shed some light on these questions. Off the top of my head I'll give 2 cases. 1) the folks at Banc de Binary, who were arrogant "amateurs". They seem to have been fairly successful for about 1.5 years (as I remember) and then much less so for about 3 years afterward. Then there was the crafty professional, Orange Moody. I guess he was pretty successful for about 5 years before being caught and continued his work for several years afterward (until at least last year when he was reported a couple of times on the wider web). Probably still going in one form or another. But more comprehensive research would certainly be welcome. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• This is actually a super-serious question and I really hope that WMF has spent some serious intellectual energy on it. There will come a day, soon, when a hostile fascist government is going to attack the information pool that powers Google and Siri and all the other reality-determining tools. ARE WE READY? Carrite (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• A related story Exclusive: U.S. accuses China of 'super aggressive' spy campaign on LinkedIn from Reuters.

'LinkedIn “is a victim here,” Evanina said. “I think the cautionary tale ... is, ‘You are going to be like Facebook. Do you want to be where Facebook was this past spring with congressional testimony, right?’” he said, referring to lawmakers’ questioning of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Russia’s use of Facebook to meddle in the 2016 U.S. elections.' (William Evanina is a U.S. counterintelligence spokesperson.)

We should make sure that we don't over-react to this type of thing - and I'd recommend focusing on election meddling, not all SSIW. Nevertheless, the sure way to over-react to this threat would be to ignore it until it hits you over the head. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Wiki

A wiki for you Google9912 (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

A simple request

Now that three days have passed, I want to request that you please read the entire thread that you started on my talk page. Please read the comments there by quite a few experienced editors. I did not intend to insult anyone but rather to briefly summarize what many other discerning editors had concluded about this particular editor's behavior. I was commenting on his recent contributions not on him as a person. It was not intended as a personal attack and others are not reading my comment that way. Of course, a four word summary lacks nuance but I was prepared to engage in a more substantive discussion, and I still am willing to do so. I do not want to be your enemy, Jimbo, which is in no small part due to my deep respect for your profound and enduring contributions to human knowledge in creating and shaping Wikipedia. I love this project from the bottom of my heart. When I criticize, which is not often, I strive to do so in a responsible and thoughtful way. I hope that you can see that this type of criticism is necessary and useful. So, I extend this olive branch to you. Please soften your heart. Let's discuss this encyclopedia and this free knowledge movement. Just as you have devoted your 21st century to it, so too have I devoted my last nine plus years, inspired at least in part by you. Thank you for considering my request. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I forgive you. It's just - when a user of long standing is obviously feeling emotional pain about something, I think we can do better than a 4 word snipe. I also think that words like "crank" should never be used for the work or agenda of another respected editor. But yeah, you're one of the good ones. We all get upset sometimes.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Cullen328 is also a very long-standing editor and admin, and a genuinely nice person with tremendous reserves of patience. I have no clue what has Michael Hardy so worked up, I invited email correspondence but he did not say anything he hasn't already said, and none of that explains why he has chosen this particular hill to die on. I find his behaviour on this topic frankly bizarre, and the topic itself is somewhere in the grey area where fraud, fad diets and pseudoscience mix. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo:  I want to thank you for your comment "I think we can do better than a 4 word snipe.  I also think that words like "crank" should never be used for the work or agenda of another respected editor."  I suggest we go further and not tolerate the use of ad hominems and pejorative labels towards any editor--regardless of whether they are in good standing or not--unless strong diffs are provided that prove the described behavior.  This applies doubly to admins, who should exhibit exemplary behavior.  I believe a major reason we lose editors is bullying that begins with the use of ad hominems and pejorative labels.  --David Tornheim (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The above is about User talk:Cullen328#I've removed your obnoxious comment from my talk page.

This is simple. Jimbo asked Cullen328 to stay off of his talk page. Cullen328 refused. We should treat this as we would treat it on any other talk page, with a series of escalating blocks until the disruptive user either decides to stay off the talk page or is indefinitely blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I consider the above to be a more than adequate apology.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

On this page we have a guy who regularly posts crap like this, but Cullen is the disruptive user? You have a strange sense of humor. Gamaliel (talk) 05:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

If you sincerely believe that to be true, Guy Macon, and you believe that I am being disruptive, then please report me to ANI or whatever venue you believe is appropriate. I assure you that I will comply 100% with whatever community consensus emerges. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The basic principle of "stop posting to a Wikipedia uer's talk page when they ask you to" is well established. I am uninterested in getting into a fight with you. If an admin chooses to act on my advice and give you a warning followed by escalating blocks, so be it. If another editor wants to report you at ANI, so be it. I personally am going to follow the advice at WP:IAD. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Opening a discussion about it on one of Wikipedia's most traffic pages isn't ignoring the drama, it's starting the drama. Gamaliel (talk) 12:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

It's a good thing that I didn't open a discussion about it on one of Wikipedia's most traffic pages, then. Unless you wish to count replying to an unambiguous violations of Wikipedia policy like refusing to stay off a user's talk page to be opening a discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Guy Macon, if you plan on ignoring drama, might I suggest that you not go around to different pages leaving unprovoked inflammatory comments. Nihlus 12:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Apparently, Nihlus really doesn't like receiving standard user warning templates.[47] What I warned him about was pinging another user when that user asked you not to ping him[48][49] -- another behavior that should result in a series of escalating blocks until the disruptive user either decides to stop pinging or is indefinitely blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Guy Macon, what does something a year old and irrelevant to the point being made have to do with your tendency to make unrelated and caustic remarks? Oh wait, you're just proving my point perfectly. Thanks. Nihlus 15:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, I was nice enough to use an interaction search to try to find what it is that you are nattering on about, but now I don't care. Next time, provide a diff instead of posting vague accusations. I am going to ignore you now. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

God, the irony. Nihlus 17:21, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Why do you keep announcing that you are ignoring people? Why not just, say, ignore them? Gamaliel (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Because certain disruptive editors (you know who you are) repeatedly claim that whenever someone stops replying to them without notice that the person who went silent is admitting that they were right. Also, I like to encourage other editors to ignore those who are especially annoying in the hope that they will grow tired of shouting into an empty room and find somewhere where their kind can find food. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I haven't been a fan of yours recently, particularly disappointed with the way you treated TRM on his talk page. I thought you received some quite just desserts when Jimbo booted you off his. Though I have to say, and GW put it very well, [o]f all things that are posted to Jimbotalk, this is the one that warrants a scolding and a ban from the page? Jimbo, Cullen is one of our most dedicated admins. He is, not coincidentally, the only admin candidate for whom over 300 editors turned out to support at RfA last year, myself included. In my opinion, and I've been very opinionated today, you'd do a disservice to the community by not considering Cullen's post here, and responding to it personally. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

So, it sounds to me something like: '. . .crank'; 'remove claimed attack'; and a response in the nature of, 'I know I am but what are you' (about some old 'bullshit' remark - what, you had that in your back-pocket to just whip-out?). Perhaps, just forget this stuff? Jimbo once showed up on my talk page as I now recall very unhappy with some remark of mine here, we did not agree (and perhaps would still disagree, were we to revisit it), but I don't now remember the details of what was said, at all, or what it was about (we could look it up in history but dredging through such details seems a waste). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. We're all human beings. We get emotional sometimes. If we're grown up about it we apologize and move on and agree to disagree (or, actually, once we calm down, we often find that our disagreement was much smaller than it felt at the time).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Just thinking - when RL identities are known, as it is in this instance, it is much easier to relate to one another with a sense of humanity and humility - much like normal people behave face-to-face - whereas the online veil of anonymity increases the likelihood of detachment and the "nasty effect" by those who already harbor such tendencies. I believe the WP community is unique in that collegiality continues to prevail despite the disagreements, occasional tiffs and heated debates...and that's a good thing. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

WP must be made more neutral

I'm talking about articles related to history. The article Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 is completely biased. It has all Indian side views. According to India they won the war, and it is mentioned in the article. However, Pakistan believes that they were victorious (which I don't believe, after reading neutral history), while a large number of neutral historians say that the war ended undecided due to USSR involvement. But no, the article completely says that India won, and all other sourced contents are reverted! I would have discussed it on the article talk page, but I know that the article is completely under the control of Indians and it would be useless. I just wanted to make you aware about this. Thanks,Knightrises10 (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

It's debates like this that make me sympathetic to the "burn all infoboxes" crowd. Here and at other pages (Bangladesh Drug War and Cold War II to name two where I've removed infoboxes recently) the attempts of some editors to shoehorn everything to fit an unreasonable data schema results in inaccurate information. This isn't a football match, the winner of the war doesn't go on to fight China to determine Asian supremacy. And is it necessary to list every general and howitzer in the infobox? power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

No person or a group can control or WP:OWN wikipedia articles. Content disputes on wikipedia are not decided by majority votes but by WP:CONSENSUS if you have a sound argument and reliable sources to support your argument, no one can stop you from starting a discussion on the talk page, getting a consensus made and then getting the edit done. But if you lack these things, then WP:FORUMSHOPPING will never help. cheers and regards --DBigXrayᗙ 16:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

It's time to euthanize Wikipedia.

In the early days of Wikipedia is was impressive even while lots of confused apes wandered about chaotically. Then it reached a mature phase and functioned in orderly fashion for some years. Now dishonest cowardly bullies sanctimoniously preach about civility while bullying their betters, bullying honest participants, bullying knowledgeable and erudite participants, bullying generous participants, and the bullies have now achieved dominance. I have done nearly 200,000 edits and created hundreds of articles, and I have done far more than 200,000 edits if you count edits while not logged in. I have edited Wikipedia daily since 2002.

I propose:

• that Wikipedia announce a date, perhaps six months from now, when it will cease allowing any edits at all; and
• that Wikipedia abandon all pretense of opposing personal attacks or condoning civility, since it is now only a pretense at best, and is ceasing to be a successful pretense. People will laugh at official avowals of wanting civility or even of wanting honesty. This abandonment should be done now. Today. With an accompanying explicit announcement that the Wiki is on its death bed and that euthanasia is the best option in this case.

Wikipedia will be a thing of the past very soon. A very impressive museum.

Maybe the culture will change so that it can be reincarnated some day. Or maybe something better will succeed it in the future. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Gosh, what happened?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:AN#Suppression or courtesy blanking of an AfD page containing libelous material - Whatever this is, is what happened. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• This has been going on for a while: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy § History of the ancestral health article and surrounding disputes. Michael Hardy has WP:OWNed that article since he started it, apparently, but I can't really see why this is suddenly so important that the entire project should be shut down two years after the event. Guy (Help!) 05:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

It's worth remembering that Michael is one of the most prolific members of the community who has been around for years. Whatever this is all about - I had missed the entire controversy until today - it's worth understanding. I think it fairly obvious that Michael isn't seriously suggesting shutting the project down - he's upset and venting. When things have calmed down, it's really worthwhile to consider what sequence of events led to this disruption and to also recognize that longstanding trusted and valued community members who are feeling this hurt and upset may actually have a point worth hearing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

So Jimbo, have you now had a chance to look at the train of events? What do you make of it, and what would you like to feed back to Michael? Things do appear to be getting a little heated on his talk page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I would rather have Wikipedia kept online. So far, it has inconvenienced:

• Corrupt politicians
• Dictatorships
• Immoral businessmen
• Nazis
• Misogynists and misandrists
• Racists
• TERFs
• Religious fanatics
• Homophobes
• Terrorists of all flavors
• Other bigots not listed here
• Conspiracy nuts

...because Wikipedia has exposed their actions as immoral, illegal, illogical or pseudo-scientific, and that attempts by these groups to edit articles are prevented by users enforcing anti-POV policies. It's also the reason why it's banned in countries that want to maintain strict control of their populations. CommanderOzEvolved (talk) (contribs) 07:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

CommanderOzEvolved—I would say that the above is more sanctimoniousness. Bus stop (talk) 08:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo is now in full-blown "suppressing dissent" mode, as an examination of the edit history of this page shows. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Bus stop Yeah I went overboard with this one, but hey. At least I like it Wikipedia for its impact. CommanderOzEvolved (talk) (contribs) 08:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• I'd just like to mention to any watchers of this page who might have faced issues which have inspired them to come here and make similar complaints, that community health is an issue which is addressed on Wikipedia here and on Wikimedia at large here. The former of the two, the Wikipedia project page has been inactive since May and it's talk page since July and could probably use Your* help. The Wikimedia initiative is benefiting from a recent banner designed to kick-start new initiatives and is quite hot at the moment. The aforementioned pages contain links and are far from being the only pages on Wikipedia, which deal with this subject. In short: community health is not something which is overlooked by either editors or organizers of this project and involvement in community health initiatives may be particularly rewarding to people who believe that their time here as an editor has been made in any way uncomfortable for having encountered bullying or anti-social behavior.
  

*Anyone and everyone Edaham (talk) 08:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• It's worth remembering that Michael is one of the most prolific members of the community who has been around for years. Maybe MH is due some respect for being around so long and contributing so much, but you know what? So is Cullen. So are a lot of other editors. The fact that MH signed up first, or makes more bot-assisted or minor edits is really immaterial to how much respect they deserve relative to other editors. You know what's not immaterial to that? the number of disruptive ANI threads they've started. The number of editors they've alienated with their poor attitude. MH doesn't really measure up too well in those two regards, but by all means: ignore all that because he's been fiddling with redirects and fixing grammar for ten years.

I would also point out that the "personal attack" which was removed from this page was, quite obviously, anything but. It was arguably somewhat uncivil (as it didn't bother to explain the logic behind it, only present a conclusion as a given), but to call it insulting is completely ignorant. "You are pursuing a crank agenda" and "you are a crank" mean two entirely different things, and it's rude and disrespectful not to give someone like Cullen the benefit of the doubt by asking them to explain before just jumping to the worst conclusion and calling it a personal attack. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

In case anyone has forgotten, the Michael Hardy case is an example of Arbcom flat out lying (saying that "a number of other community members chose to involve themselves in this dispute and/or commented extensively during the events leading up to the case... Softlavender in particular [has] made comments that may have been good-faith expressions of concern, but were critical of Hardy in ways that did not clarify the situation or deescalate the dispute."[50]) when Softlavender's only involvement was offering evidence in the Arbcom case.[51])

Arbcom followed up on this blatant lie (yes, there will be those who object to me calling a lie a lie, but presenting evidence during an Arbcom case is not "commenting extensively during the events leading up to the case". That's a lie.) by attempting to sanction Softlavender and others[52].

They relented when there was a shitstorm of protest ("Switching to oppose by request of the community. Everyone thinks this is outrageous and useless..."), but some of them did so with snarky comments like "I remain very disappointed in many of the community members who participated in escalating this dispute, and unimpressed that almost no one involved... seems to have changed their position, reconsidered their behavior, or demonstrated self-awareness of their own contributions to the problem" -- totally ignoring fact that multiple editors had just told them that their "escalating this dispute" claim was factually incorrect.

As I have done several time before, again I call upon Arbcom to make it clear that anyone can offer evidence in an Arbcom case without being sanctioned simply for presenting evidence that some arbcom members don't want to hear. See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 35#I believe that I am owed an apology. for details. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

---

Getting back to the topic at hand, Michael Hardy has been "blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for namecalling and doubling down on personal attacks against six named editors",[53] and when he continued the personal attacks on his talk page,[54] his talk page access was revoked.[55] --Guy Macon (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

It worries me that he is behaving as if he is invested in the topic or has some personal relationship with the individuals called out in the AfD. Guy (Help!) 17:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The underlying question

This concerns Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancestral health. AfD pages are not indexed so should not pollute Google searches, but regardless, the bar to courtesy blanking is pretty low for BLP issues.

However, this is not obviously a BLP issue. Michael Hardy appears to have some kind of emotional investment inthe subject, he considered Orangemike's characterisation of the Journal of Evolution and Health as unrecognised to be outrageous. Actually it was pretty accurate. The journal published its first issue in 2013, its second in 2017, so at the time of the AfD it had one issue only, which contained the cited paper. It had then and as far as I can tell has now no entry in the usual indexes, no impact factor, and is not listed in any of the directories that indicate reliability.

Michael Hardy appears to think that it is libellous and outrageous to suggest that this journal was set up by advocates of this particular fad diet in order to promote it. Whether or not that is true, it is, I suggest, a reaonsable interpretation of the facts. A random sample of articles found at least one member of the editorial board as author or co-author on every one. In my experience, that is a massive red flag for a crank journal. I have assessed and purged references to hundreds of these over time, most are predatory.

He also appears to believe that it is libellous and outrageous to assert that advocates of this fad diet are using discipline-specific jargon in order to give an air of legitimacy to what is implicitly a pseudoscientific study. Again, regardless of the merits of the claim, it a not unreasonable inference in context. A group of people combine to publish a journal which has Vol. 1 Iss 1 and then lies dormant, using sciencey-sounding language to advocate something that is unquestionably commercially lucrative but which does not appear to have significant academic support. That is a giant red flag, and if it was the Journal of Reiki and Health or the Journal of Homeopathy and Health I venture to suggest that MH might well feel less inclined to die on this particular hill.

So the comments on the AfD are not actionable, and are defensible, but someone doesn't like them and it sounds very much as if they are in touch with MH complaining about it.

My personal preference is to courtesy blank any AfD where an editor in good standing asks nicely. If this had come in via OTRS when I did that, I'd probably have done the same. Does anyone have any good reason why we should not do that here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs) 15:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I never said it was libelous to say an organization is promoting a fad diet (even though that is not it's purpose, I don't think that's libelous. I never said it was libelous or outrageous to call an unimportant journal unrecognized; I said that word should not be used in a misleading way. What I called libelous was the statements that certain professors are charlatans.

(The organization's main purpose is to organize conferences at which researchers do presentations of their findings to their fellow researchers.)

"Unquestionably commerically lucrative"? How? They're not selling anything except tickets to their conferences at which researchers meet; the tickets costs pay for the conference. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: How is it lucrative? They organize conferences at which professors present their findings to other professors. You claim that is lucrative? And if they're promoting pseudo-science, how long would they keep their positions at universities? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Michael Hardy: It's already been blanked. Have you ever heard the old proverb "don't sell past the close"? It's time to stop arguing for something you already got unless you want all the people vociferously opposed to blanking to start voicing their opinions again, and the relatively few people who supported it questioning their decision. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: And I would still like to know why anyone would think such a thing is lucrative. I had never suspected people could be as confused about the facts as some are about this. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not responding for the purpose of debating the nature of the industry surrounding the paleo diet. I merely offered you some good advice. Have a nice day. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

With regards to how long would they keep their positions at universities? I would just like to say indefinitely due to tenure. Peter Duesberg is an HIV denialist at UC Berkeley whom they cannot get rid of due to tenure. There are also plenty of Holocaust deniers in history departments at prestigious universities who hid their views until tenure. JustOneMore (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I say blank it, but only after the current discussion dies down and the block expires. Right now a lot of us are looking at the AfD to evaluate the claims of a BLP violation. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the good reasons not to blank are all the reasons that JzG already noted, and the unanimous consensus among 13 admins and other experienced editors at AN that it should not be blanked. Acceding to a ridiculous whim after a barrage of personal attacks that resulted not only in a block but a TP revocation as well is only going to make things worse. Softlavender (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

We don't need a lot of a reason to blank an AfD, once the debate is done the utility o the page is over, and the content remains in the history of anyone cares. The entrenched views on display here are inexplicable to me given the trivial nature of the content itself. This stinks of an off-wiki dispute of some sort. Guy (Help!) 16:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Right back at ya. The trivial (and off-article-space) nature of the content itself means there is utterly no reason to blank it. There is an overwhelming unanimous consensus not to blank it, so to blank it would be against consensus. As is, the person insisting on blanking has been blocked and is having his mop newly questioned, especially following the ArbCom reprimand he received for exactly the kind of odd and bullying behavior he is currently exhibiting. Softlavender (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Note that questions about MH's suitability as an admin are not, in fact, new. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Question: Can anyone think up a good reason not to blank the AfD? I'm just saying, if there's a mediocre reason to blank (fulfilling a request from a longstanding editor) and no appreciable reason not to do so, then the obvious course of action is to blank it.

I don't consider this a rhetorical question. I'm honestly asking. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Reasons for courtesy blanking:

1. Someone somewhere finds a debate page upsetting.

2. Er....

3. That's it.

Well, not quite, but not far off. The bar to courtesy blanking if any living person finds a page offensive or belittling is very low, because WP:NOTEVIL.

I have no clue why MH is so angry about this, equally I have no clue why people are so keen to ensure that the visibility of this AfD is maximised. Guy (Help!) 17:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Guy, I've moved your comment to what seemed the more appropriate place and altered the indenting. Feel free to revert me if I was in error.

I think you've described my position fairly well, assuming that "blanking" refers to actually blanking the page, and not revdelling all edits to it or deleting the page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• While the article may not be based on good sources, we should look beyond that and take all the evidence on this whole issue seriously. We can read here:

"...the Tsimane, a forager-horticulturalist population of the Bolivian Amazon with few coronary artery disease risk factors, have the lowest reported levels of coronary artery disease of any population recorded to date."

This raises questions about the way research is conducted on health and nutrition. It seems that too much weight is put on research involving Western-style diets, without questioning whether all Western-style diets may actually cause heart disease. The result on the Tsimane wasn't actually the first such result, we can read here:

"Williams and Jack Davies had shown clinically and pathologically that coronary heart disease was almost non-existent among the African population in Uganda, although Hugh Trowell had reported a single case of coronary heart disease in an African judge. In the Asian community of Uganda, on the other hand, coronary heart disease was extremely common, accounting for almost half of the male deaths in Kampala in 1956–1958."

So, the data about diets that cause orders of magnitude less arterial plaque on which you can thrive, is out there. It existed already in the 1950s and it has been replicated recently. However, we prefer to ignore that data and do research that allows us to eat a diet similar to what we eat already that will reduce adverse health effects, take e.g. the Mediterranean diet. But compared to a diet that leads to almost zero rates of cardiovascular disease, the Mediterranean diet is not at all healthy.

So, while Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, there should still be plenty of room to write a good article about this subject, as there is evidence for the general claims made, published in reliable journals. Count Iblis (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I have no wish to relitigate that question here (though the inability of the proponents to sustain a self-published journal rather suggests you may be wrong). The question is purely about courtesy blankign a page that implicitly identifies living people in a less than flattering context. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• I also do not oppose blanking (just in case I am included in the 13). My take from the AfD is one has to do not insignificant research to even begin to understand Hardy's complaint (the "critical comments", shall we say, seem too generalized for something like "oversight" action, although there is talk of "scam", which it's not now clear where that first came up (edit summary?). Initially, I was thinking targeted redaction but that is rather too pointed on single editors' generalized comments. At any rate, as suggested, there is no need to prove or even claim something like "libel" for a courtesy blanking. I also think that discussion at AN got a bit out-of-hand with reference to past 'bad acts' of Hardy (per CIVIL and NPA - bringing up past bad acts, but then again, it rather started off sidetracked with "libel") -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• A sample of reasons not to blank: the page contains no BLP violations or other inappropriate material that needs blanking; AfDs are archived because they're a record of prior consensus and shouldn't be obscured without grounds; this particular AfD was also cited in an arbcom case; several "editors in good standing" have already explicitly opposed it; there are strong indications that the request is motivated by, if not a COI, then a fringe POV; MH has already gotten away with far too much disruptive and frankly bizarre behaviour because he is a "longstanding editor". – Joe (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

So we should retain a page that contains insinuations about readily identifiable living people, in order to punish MH for being a dick? This really isn't about him. At all. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Joe, I probably should have been more clear: I was asking for reasons to not blank. What you've provided here are mostly arguments against the previously described reason for blanking. Don't get me wrong, these are good arguments. But they undermine reasons to blank: they don't provide a reason not to blank. To express myself better, let me ask: What do you think the downside would be to blanking? How would it hurt the project? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Really, there isn't much of a downside. Done. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

And reverted. Oh, well, I tried. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, if someone asked me "do you see any reason in the AfD that it should be blanked", my answer would be no. But I also don't see any particular reason to deny courtesy blanking in this case. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

↑ This exactly. Courtesy blanking should follow a rational basis test, not strict scrutiny. What matters is that someone has identified a potential problem. I would like to know the basis for this, two years after the event. I would absolutely support "X has contacted me and asked for courtesy blanking of this page" as a rationale for an AfD debate, but MH's over the top reaction has not helped. Guy (Help!) 19:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

"This really isn't about him" – of course it is. We're only engaged in this colossal waste of time because he has apparently carried this grudge for two years while the rest of us forgot about that AfD. If merely stating a reasonable and relevant opinion about a living person is cause for blanking, you better get cracking on every AfD of a BLP there's ever been.

And to clarify, what I was trying to say above is that we shouldn't accommodate groundless, POV-motivated requests to censor discussions from disruptive editors just because they're old hands. Especially not when other editors object. It hurts the project's integrity, may cause a chilling effect on future discussions, and we wouldn't even be considering it if MH wasn't an admin with an old account. – Joe (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree fully with your first paragraph, and your second contains one of the reasons I was asking for, thank you. I've manually reverted your revert because your edit summary seemed to reply only to the specific reason Sarek gave, and while I won't edit war over it, I will hope you won't, either (but I will, neither, be surprised if someone else reverts me). Nevermind: I see you've already decided it's worth edit warring over.

So it seems to me that we should weigh the benefit of extending a courtesy to a longtime editor with the drawback of possible giving off a harmful impression to newer editors.

I, for one, would be happy to make an additional statement outlining my support for blanking, my past interactions with MH (entirely negative), as well as my estimation of the value of their request ("childish demand" would be more accurate), and a clear statement that I would extend the same courtesy to any editor who is not indeffed or community banned right there on the page to offset any perception of favoritism. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe restoring the stable version agreed upon in an WP:AN thread is "edit warring" any more than your revert was. However you interpreted my edit summary, it seems extremely arrogant to impose your personal judgement of the situation over that of the half a dozen editors who participated there.

I agree entirely with the trade-off you mention: MH's behaviour in the AfD in question already drove off one new editor (the very same person he is now accusing of slander), and I'd opt for not rubbing salt in that wound, not rewarding his bullying with "courtesies". – Joe (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe restoring the stable version agreed upon in an WP:AN thread is "edit warring" any more than your revert was. You've reverted twice now, which meets the definition of "edit warring". Whether it should be responded to with sanctions is a different question, one I'm inclined to answer "no" simply because I don't care enough about this subject.

Which leaves another question: Why do you?

I might point out that there are (quite obviously) people who agree with Michael Hardy and support him. Look at Jimbo's response to Cullen's comment, described above. Those people will, to some extent, agree with his complaints about being bullied and discriminated against. So whether we blank the page or not, we're giving the impression that we encourage favoritism and reward bad behavior, just to a different group. I've offered to do something that could -along with the blanking- offset that. I've yet to see anything coming from the "don't blank" side of this argument that even approaches an attempt to work things out, instead of winning the debate. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The "not rewarding his bullying" above caught my eye. When someone behaves badly, the Right Thing To Do is to act exactly as if they hadn't. We should not be more inclined or less inclined to courtesy blank because of Hardy's behavior. And blanking a year-old page when even one editor thinks it is a BLP violation is standard (and in this case it is more than one editor). --Guy Macon (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• "Censorship"? For goodness sake, that's just ratcheting up. In no way is courtesy blanking upon request censorship. It is also unseemly to not extend a courtesy, because one does not think a particular editor deserves a courtesy (courtesy is trying to be better, is it not). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Is it? "The suppression of speech... on the basis that such material is considered objectionable" is our definition of censorship, but feel free to pretend I wrote "redact" instead.

To answer Mjolnir's question: I care because of the shameful double standard. A new editor is driven off the project by an "established" one, and we're now seriously considering obscuring the record of that as a courtesy to the latter? MH's response to failing to gain consensus at AN was to repeatedly attack the other editors involved and whine to his old pal Jimbo... so we let him have his way? – Joe (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

No, you are looking at this in fundamentally the wrong way. However much of a dick MH might have been, that is never a reason to refuse to courtesy blank a debate that makes insinuations about somebody else. A righteous concern raised in the wrong way is still a righteous concern. I don't give a monkeys about MH or hos motley band of boosters and knockers, but I do care that someone has, at some point, raised a concern about rhetorical exuberance concerning easily identifiable living individuals who have no obvious role in the fight. And so should you. It's about showing class. Leave it to Commons to do the worst thing possible just because it's legally allowed, here at Wikipedia we should aspire to better. Guy (Help!) 19:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea why you just mentioned redact. At any rate, a blank does not suppress any speech, it just files it in a different form. And the idea of limited courtesy is not just to the editor, it's to the one(s) whose professional or personal reputation it "may" effect. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't know what speech you think is being suppressed. Everything i nthe AfD has already been said, and can still be seen after a blanking.

To answer Mjolnir's question: I care because of the shameful double standard. What double standard? Is M. A. Bruhn being denied a courtesy blanking?

MH's response to failing to gain consensus at AN was to repeatedly attack the other editors involved and whine to his old pal Jimbo... so we let him have his way? MH has been blocked, and had their TP access removed. In addition, according to comments by the last arbcom (which -it should be noted- seemed to be eager to blame anyone but MH for all the shit he stirred up), this incident itself creates grounds to seriously consider desysopping him involuntarily. Plus, I'm of the opinion that his outlook in a possible site ban discussion would not be so hot. Sure, Jimbo might show up and rally some support, but the community at large seems to be mostly fed up with his crap by this point.

It's hardly fair for you to suggest that a blanking represents us kowtowing to MH, or letting them get their way from throwing a fit. It seems more like us being nice even when we don't have to be. It also seems to me to be a good way to reduce MH's avenues for stirring up more shit once their block expires. You know: we do it not because he deserves it, but just to shut him the hell up about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's a synonym for censor. And yes – "may" in massive air quotes. Guy, above, you yourself describe the comments you have just blanked as "not [an] unreasonable inference in context", "not actionable" and "defensible". Yet you have overridden the opinions of a half dozen plus of your fellow editors and removed them anyway. Why? Because we should act on any request to courtesy blank? Even when the person making the request has not "asked nicely" and patently has an ulterior motive? – Joe (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd just like to jump in here to give my view of the philosophical questions you raise here, Joe. Should we act on any request to courtesy blank? No, not any - but we can and should be very liberal about it. A courtesy blank is a very good tool to do the right thing by a person who some may perceive have been treated less than ideally. And I don't see any reason for the behavior of the person making the request to come into it very much at all. Wikipedia is not the place to punish people or to act out grudges.

Let me say this more clearly by presenting it as a hypothetical that I do NOT think is a description of the current situation. Let's imagine that a very very annoying person asks in a really rude and wrong way to courtesy blank something that is about a third person (a BLP subject), and it is obvious that the very very annoying person has some ulterior motive related to internal Wikipedia disputes. In such a case I think the ONLY question to consider is the nature of the content to be blanked, and the dignity of that third person. And the analysis should absolutely not be "is this illegal" but a much much lower threshold of something like "is this something that could potentially cause hurt" and we should balance that - but not against "is there any conceivable possible reason why a blank would hinder our work in some tiny way in the future" but "is there an absolutely overwhelmingly compelling reason to keep it".

Why do I take this approach? Because this is a wiki. We don't have to keep absolutely everything, nor should we keep absolutely everything.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

What's a synonym for "censor", "suppress" or "redact"? At any rate, it does not matter, no speech is being suppressed or censored - that "censor" claim is both wrong and ratcheting up. "May" is quoting the courtesy blanking guide, not air quotes (whatever those are). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@MPants: It certainly is kowtowing. When his short block expires, his tantrum has had the effect he wanted. I completely agree with you that a desysop and ban is in order but I wouldn't put money on it actually happening with the friends he has. In which case I hope you'll still be happy that you tried so hard to hide his dirty laundry for him. – Joe (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

In which case I hope you'll still be happy that you tried so hard to hide his dirty laundry for him. In case you didn't look at my edit before you reverted it; I included a link directing readers to exactly where they could find this "dirty laundry", so your comment here and your comments above about "censorship" reek of hyperbolic falsehood.

And yes: I would rather look back on my actions and say "Hmm, being courteous actually ended up biting me in the ass this time," than to look back and say "Ha! Serves that immature little lunatic charlatan right that the discussion never got blanked." I know it may be hard to believe, but I actually do think that MH's history of contributions to this site has earned them at least a little courtesy, even if it's courtesy in being shown the door. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

So we have to hide content that may violate BLP, but hiding it doesn't actually hide it, it helps people find it? What funhouse mirror-world have I stepped into? – Joe (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

"Have to?" No. But should we take an action that doesn't really change anything but could very well stuff a sock in the piehole of a disruptive editor whom you think is immune to a community ban and give him one less thing to bitch about? Yup. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't you both think this should be discussed and decided elsewhere? ---Sluzzelin talk 20:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I do not think that this should be discussed and decided elsewhere. Michael Hardy posted his complaint here, not elsewhere. And while it is true that Hardy is behaving very poorly indeed, He feels that there is a BLP violation, and in general we courtesy blank 2-year-old deletion discussions if anyone thinks they contain a BLP violation -- we don't argue with them, we don't require an RfC on the issue, and we don't revert when an uninvolved veteran editor blanks the page for containing a BLP violation. So Hardy, no matter how annoying he happens to be, was right to appeal to Jimbo. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

All's well that ends well. Meanwhile, up here in Canada we stood up for Mexico to keep them from being thrown under the bus re: NAFTA "negotiations", only to see Skull and Boner, Mnuchin, recruit Mexico into joining his skinny ass to apply the Boners' so typical as to be boring "double cross" tool (think GHW greenlighting Saddam's invasion of Iraq) ...thereby putting 500,000 Canadian jobs in jeopardy ...point being, Michael Hardy????? Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Michael. With the way Wikipedia is going, the project is doomed anyway. Good editors are bullied out, bad ones are catered to, the signpost and wiki projects are dead. So is RFA. Just put it down. 170.121.246.249 (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• This is a petty thing that has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. If someone wants to sooth him and hide it, knock yourself out but don't dress it up as anything more than a small gesture of coddling and somewhat inappropriate (the community found no obvious BLP violation at ANI; the given reason is without merit). But really, fuhgedaboudit. Jytdog (talk) 00:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• One point I feel needs to be made here concerning the blanking of the AFD is that according to WP:CBLANK, "Courtesy blanking, history blanking, or oversighting should be rare, and should be performed only after due consideration." So contrary to what has been suggested above, we should not simply courtesy blank any discussion that we are asked to courtesy blank; we should only accept such requests if there is a good reason to do so. Certainly claiming that something is "libelous" reeks of WP:NLT and doesn't seem like a very compelling reason to blank anything. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 01:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@IntoThinAir: Deleting material because it's identified as libelous is standard procedure on Wikipedia, and happens daily. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Sense and nonsense, truth and falsehood

• "JzG"'s comments are nonsense. I do not consider the "ancestral health" article important.
• It is not true that I said it was outrageous to call an unimportant journal "unrecognized". Rather, I said that word should not be used in a misleading way by suggesting there is such a thing as official recognition of journals.
• The things I called libel were these: (1) At least three respected professors at respected universities were said to have been making use of the standard jargon of their fields only for the purpose of creating a false impression that they are legitimate scientists. (2) It was asserted that they do not publish in any journals except one they founded. Somehow it must be possible to become a professor at Johns Hopkins while doing that. (3) It was asserted that those professors do not collaborate in research with anyone not belonging to an organization they founded.
• (Personal attack removed)
• It is not true that there are venues within Wikipedia to which one can bring complaints of bullying. Those who say there are, are either deceived or deceivers. That is entirely fraudulent. Probably that will result in legal proceedings some day, and the sooner the better for Wikipedia. This fact is what is important here. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• It is absolutely true that you personally attacked those six users; apart from the original allegation, you also called them "deeply dishonest", amongst other things, on your talk page. Therefore I have removed that section as a personal attack; I did that instead of the alternative action, which would have been to block you again. Please stop flinging accusations at other users, or that will be the eventual outcome. Black Kite (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite: What do you propose is the proper way of accusing those who commit acts of dishonesty on Wikipedia? Is there a way? The venue provided for that is corrupt and the accused are of the faction that controls it. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, the proper way is certainly not to attack people (often without a shred of evidence) as you still appear to be doing (see the paragraph you wrote below). You know very well that the correct forum is ArbCom, and whilst you may have no confidence in it (I myself have criticised it many, many, times), that is the situation as it stands. Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

• I hate to do anything that might look like throwing water on this grease fire but I think it's worth responded to MH's initial complaints.

At least three respected professors at respected universities were said to have been making use of the standard jargon of their fields only for the purpose of creating a false impression that they are legitimate scientists.
That is factually inaccurate. What M. A. Bruhn said was "In general I support people's honest efforts to come together to learn and discuss how to improve their health. Although I do wish they didn't co-opt mainstream scientific terminology in order to embroider their efforts with the appearance of legitimacy." It is rather obvious that Bruhn was not claiming that these aren't legitimate scientists, but that "ancestral health" was not a legitimate field of study. Note also in that diff that Bruhn opens by disclaiming the attachment of pejorative labels to ancestral health advocates.

It was asserted that they do not publish in any journals except one they founded.
This is also factually untrue. What M. A. Bruhn said was "The best evidence of their lack of acceptance in general scientific discourse, is the fact that all their discussion and collaboration takes place entirely outside of the forums of general scientific discoure. No publications in journals outside their own, no outreach or collaboration with established networks of researchers/healthcare professionals or professional organizations. Their history describes their community as emerging from the blogosphere, and that is where they have since remained.".Note that in the original text, the words "Their history" were externally linked to http://www.ancestralhealth.org/about) It is quite clear that in this section, Bruhn is speaking exclusively in the context of this discussion. Bruhn did not claim that no advocate of ancestral health had ever published anything. He claimed that no literature on ancestral health had been published in the mainstream.

It was asserted that those professors do not collaborate in research with anyone not belonging to an organization they founded.
This is untrue, as seen in the diff/quote provided in response to the previous claim.

I would, finally, point out that at no point prior to Bruhn's comments had anyone mentioned the credentials of any legitimate scientist discussing ancestral health, nor their affiliations. It may very well be that Bruhn was under the impression that there were no actual scientists or doctors involved with the ancestral health movement. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with MPants at work's analysis. But even if Michael Hardy exaggerated, isn't there still a major problem with the statements quoted above, or especially this, calling the Ancestral Health a scam--something MH found particularly troublesome? A simple look on Google Scholar on "Ancestral Health" [56] produces what appears to me a "legitimate article" in a "legitimate publication", not to mention the extensive talk about the "Paleo diet". As for the claims that these professors do not collaborate with others in this or related fields, that they do not do outreach, and that they do not publish about their "Ancestral Health" work in any but their own journal does seem both unduly nasty and also untrue. I looked up Hamilton M. Stapell's published articles and see for example this article published in an Oxford journal on "evolutionary medicine". And the Ancestral Health symposium's stated purpose is to "bring together a community of scientists, healthcare professionals, and health enthusiasts who collaborate to understand health challenges from an evolutionary perspective." [57] Isn't there also a problem with saying that professors "co-opt mainstream scientific terminology in order to embroider their efforts with the appearance of legitimacy"? Yes, it's possible that the author of the statement believed they were not professors, but if so, shouldn't that statement still be retracted? --David Tornheim (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Don't take this the wrong way, but...

Oh noes! An editor was wrong about something! Whatever shall we do?? See my edit summary. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The fixer-upper:for many of our ills....and I brought this up before MH was piled-on for wanting a blanked AfD

• Trial period for all new admins
• Mandatory recall at years 3-6-10, or at years 5 & 10
• After year 10, a one or two year break - reapply for tools

^{Atsme📞📧} 22:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Not happening, all discussed multiple times and rejected. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I would estimate that we have over a 90% consensus that there is something wrong with how we choose administrators, but no proposed solution -- and there have been a lot of proposed solutions -- has ever reached a 10% consensus, and most are much lower than that. Unless you can come up with something that nobody has proposed before, it is a colossal waste of time proposing solutions that have been rejected multiple times. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Ahem. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Exposing the fact that problems exist is a step in the right direction as it often leads to discussion which leads to potential solutions. Discouraging such discussion leads nowhere. Complacency, intimidation, real or perceived, and the chilling effect such behaviors have on the community are major hurdles to overcome, as is any challenge to positions of authority or changes to longstanding customs. Perhaps some of the eye-opening events that have occurred over the past 10 months at RfA, AE, and with problematic desysopping will serve as catalysts for positive change. ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Strongly agree. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Surely the elephant in the room here is that the way in which administrators are chosen has changed somewhat over the past 17 or so years? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC) ...although whether or not Michael actually had any admin tusks, seems to be still in dispute.

IMO 2 gradual changes would 90% fix it. Slowly develop a list of "Yoda admins who have Yoda wisdom qualities. And eventually they become the ones to handle disciplining and other really tough /complex people situations. Second, evolve RFA to receiving input on listed required qualities. Finally, after there are some Yodas in place and in use, lower the bar a bit at RFA. North8000 (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

A classic of the "Jimbo-talk" genre. The solution to all our admin problems is ... Yoda. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Mock the consensus you must not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Promote Bishzilla to 'crat. Job done. Guy (Help!) 19:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I had no idea people were like this

• I have long known that there are bullies on Wikipedia; it's only recently I identified the pattern I've mentioned above, by means of which bullies have become dominant on regulator pages like the Administrators' Noticeboards.
• As I've said (and as some are finding amazingly difficult to grasp) I do not consider the "ancestral health" article important. And yet my sociological interest has been aroused by things people have posted on this page. I had no idea people would engage in some modes of thinking I've seen on this page. For the information of those who don't know it:

Of course there are lots of medical quacks.

It is standard practice for respected and respectable professors who are either interested in a research topic that only a few of their colleagues are interested in, or disagree with views that are in the mainstream in their field, to organize conferences at which they present their research findings to each other. Nobody among their colleagues thinks that that means they're somehow not legitimate. (Not that there are no professors who think some of their colleagues are dishonest; certainly there are.)

That does not mean they don't publish in journals other than their own. Of course they do. Most such conferences are not associated with particular journals. On this very page we see some people saying particular professors don't publish in journals besides their own, when it is verifiable on the web that they do. "JzG" in particular says this, and I'd never have guessed that someone would keep reiterating that after it was pointed out that it's a facile mistake. Just look on the web.

It also does not mean they don't collaborate in research with other professors besides those sharing particular interests.

I didn't know that there would be so many people who don't know these things who keep asserting that they are knowledgeable in these areas. This present page is what brought that to my attention.

Michael Hardy (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

You keep telling us how unimportant the ancestral health article is. You have expended uncounted thousands of words in recent weeks explaining at length how unimportant it is to you, yet how that deletion debate is somehow the death of Wikipedia. I know that if life is going to exist in a Wikipedia of this size, then the one thing it cannot afford to have is a sense of proportion, but honestly this is starting to sound like the "Labour antisemitism" row, or Benghazi, or some such. As far as I can tell, everyone independent who has looked at the claimed abuse, sees nothing other than you getting worked up for no obvious reason. When I get like that I take a Wikibreak. Guy (Help!) 19:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)