User talk:Jimbo Wales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

(Manual archive list)


I have a vision for Wikipedia to be devoid of typographical errors, and would appreciate it if you can actively take steps to work toward this goal. (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I've corrected your typographical error for you. Squinge (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
One small step for grammar nazis, one giant leap for mankind. --7157.118.25a (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 :-) Squinge (talk) 09:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I've proposed many times that Eric and I get sizable pay checks for our work, but to no avail. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Or should that be "cheque"? The biggest problem that I have come across is people arguing about which national version of spelling to use, which is covered at WP:PERENNIAL. Overall, the spelling on Wikipedia is pretty good, and better than some newspapers where the proof readurs seem to be working part time.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The same IP posted at the the village pump with a similar concern. I posted at their talk page encouraging them to fix it themself. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Mark Bernstein blog post

Hi Jimbo. I'm very concerned about the allegations raised in Mark Bernstein's blog post Infamous. If the allegations of who will and won't be banned, and why, are true (and based on my experience outside of Wikipedia of the GamerGate movement, it's very likely), then we need to stop the preliminary decision from being enforced in its proposed form. If the allegations are false (unlikely), then the community needs to address the claims made in the blog post. Just hyperlinking to the arbcom case won't work, as it's a tad tl;dr. Thanks, Andjam (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The entire situation is a poignant illustration of what happens when you lose any sense of proportion. Guy (Help!) 01:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
For using terms like slander, I don't see much in the way of evidence from Bernstein, so it looks like spin and exaggerated distortion to me. It appears those "five horsemen" were colluding themselves to silence those they disagreed with[1][2] so I question Bernstein's portrayal of them as poor persecuted feminists. --7157.118.25a (talk) 02:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
My guess is that both sides were colluding in the way Bernstein criticizes from what I'm seeing of this. To an extent I wonder if such collaboration even can be kept out of Wikipedia at all. It seems like trying to ban guns or alcohol, there will always be a black market. Frankly people are always going to want to work together on causes. Part of me wonders if the anti-canvassing restrictions just lead to cases of sneakiness like this where the ones who get away with it are those willing to lie about it while accusing others. It's frustrating to play by the rules and run up against gangs of people working against you as seen here. --7157.118.25a (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Bernstein's post is very one-sided. Then again, the current Gamergate WP page is one sided, the on-wiki debate has been one-sided, the mainstream media coverage has been one-sided, the result of the "battleground" fight has been one-sided — so this is nothing new. In his criticism of the proposed decision he is peddling horsefeathers... There need to be POV warriors removed on both sides of this food fight and Arbcom is (imperfectly) doing that. Carrite (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC) last edit: Carrite (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The real danger I see is not so much POV (since everyone has one, as long as one keeps it out of one's editing and just reports the facts) or even collaboration, but rather colluding to remove those one disagrees with. Then it becomes a free speech issue and results in dictatorships with biased results, where consensus can't be achieved because all those who disagree get eliminated. That's why I am so concerned about using objective standards to define what fringe views are, because I think that issue is one way discrimination occurs, resulting in removal of editors based on their viewpoints. --7157.118.25a (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Much better to give every fringey fringe equal air time. Or, alternatively, using subjective standards! Drmies (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey, 7157.118.25a, if you're User:Jzyehoshua then you're indef blocked for violating a community imposed topic ban and shouldn't be creating new accounts here. I guess you couldn't keep your own POV under control, huh? Where's Mabel? (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Ha, thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
My pleasure. You may want to block User: (or just keep an eye on Mike Huckabee for the next sock). Where's Mabel? (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Or, if you find Mabel, you can maybe ask her to log in to her regular admin-powered account, and she can take care of it! Anyway, I'm guessing the autoblock might take care of it--and if not, well, Jimbo has admin powers too. As for Mike Huckabee, I am court-ordered to stay away from him: I'm highly allergic to the man and his ideas. Post at RFPP if it gets out of hand. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
There's a reason he's topic banned. Really he misses the entire point. In the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, there should never be "5 horseman." Lots of people making small neutral edits keeps ownership and POV problems in check and prevents the anthropomorphization of any viewpoint. The target was created by problematic editors. NBSB has thousands of edits on this sole topic. That's a problem. --DHeyward (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The reason that there are "5 horsemen" is that anonymous trolls on 8chan decided to target the editors who were preventing them from slandering living people on the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Nonetheless Mark Bernstein is topic banned with very good reason. He accused User:Thargor Orlando of being part of a coordinated effort against him on 8chan, based on absolutely no evidence[3]. He implied that the thread was part of an attempt on his life (thereby implying based on 0 evidence that a wikipedia editor was part of a plot to murder him).[4] He has accused other editors of being pro-rape and women-beating.[5] He has accused User:Masem of being head of a complex 8chan cabal of GamerGaters, and of being a rape apologist based on an edit war he tried to solve.[6] He has shown complete disregard when advised that he may be causing more harm than good.[7][8] Mark Bernstein is the last person (excluding a few 100 or so pro-GG conspiracy theorists) any self-respecting journalist should have gone to for information about the GamerGate arbcom case. Bosstopher (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not talking about Mark Bernstein in this case. "Operation 5 Horsemen" was explicitly devised by trolls on 8chan. You want a link to the pastebin they put together to say "These five editors oppose our POV, therefore we should destroy them"? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm aware of the fact that "Operation 5 Horseman" is an 8chan thing, hence why I started my comment with "nonetheless." The point I was trying to make was that even though what DHeyward is saying is incorrect, he's right that Mark Bernstein is topic banned with good reason, and is not someone (at least in this scenario) who journalists should be citing as a main source for information. Bosstopher (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Bernstein got topic banned because he was boomeranged after an attempt to ban Masem, and by accusing him of being a rape apologist (or something I can't recall exactly). It is disingenuous to think he was topic banned for pushing an "anti-Gamergate" agenda.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
As I recall, DSA is the one who coined the "5 Horsemen of WikiBias" term and 8chan just ran with it. Most of the evidence in the findings of fact against the five appear to be mostly my evidence with some of Tutelary's evidence. Not sure where Tutelary's evidence came from, but the evidence I presented is basically all stuff I dug up myself and it seems the small bit of evidence I got from someone else (on my talk page) is not being used. Claims that 8chan is somehow controlling anything going on with this case are pretty meager. Only one piece of evidence I sent privately was from 8chan and that was more like a tip that I then investigated before e-mailing them. As of right now, it appears that evidence is not affecting the decision.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Your evidence was incredibly faulty and put forward in bad faith. You included several links to edits that were inherently not violations but you provided them entirely out of context to make them appear to be violations. That was clear from all of our rebuttals to the various links you posted.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Seems to me every rebuttal you gave to my evidence was some variation of "It was an accident!" Given your tendency for "accidents" I am not sure that was the best defense.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

TDA, this is the bullshit that we are all tired of. You are the one who made the incredibly bad edit. Yet you are the one attempting to cast blame on me for pointing out that this edit was incredibly bad. This is ridiculous. You should not be chastising me for an edit you made in the first place.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Part of a bigger problem

The Arbitration Committee is probably the biggest factor to Wikipedia's disrepute, especially towards female and LGBT editors. I said so after Sexology, I said so after Manning naming dispute, I said so after GGTF, and I'm saying it again now after Gamergate. In all four cases, people who were trying to prevent specialised POV pushing from bigots were reprimanded severely and said bigots were given free reign in their topic areas. Far from being a neutral arbiter of disputes, ArbCom, no matter who is on it, seems intent on keeping and worsening the heterosexual cisgender white male systemic point of view. Sceptre (talk) 05:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Sceptre. You may be looking at all this very narrowly. The big picture is that the current proposed decision is even-handed and includes:
  • no site-bans
  • eleven t-bans
  • endorses forty or so existing community sanctions and places them under ArbCom enforcement
  • endorses about a hundred community warnings/notifications and brings them under ArbCom enforcement
  • introduces discretionary sanctions for any gender-related dispute or controversy to fast-track problem editors
  • reminds editors of the existing BLP provisions to tackle drive-by abuse
  • tackles factionalism and blocs
  • invites neutral editors to participate
  • invites uninvolved administrators to participate
  • invites review of problematic articles
As we have no jurisdiction whatsoever over editorial content, and have absolutely no mandate to create new policy by fiat, I'm not clear what else we're supposed to do.  Roger Davies talk 06:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
The fact that the decision is "even-handed" is the problem, Roger. There are not two "equal sides" here, there is one side that has been responsible for vicious attacks on living people and endless attempts to depict living people in a false light, and another side that has worked tirelessly to prevent these falsehoods from appearing in the encyclopedia. Pretending that these are "equal" issues is the very crux of the issue that you continue to ignore. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
That is certainly the view of the partisans on both sides (though of course both portray theirs as the only valid view). Those not committed to one side or another are less convinced. The Manning case was a trainwreck with obvious enabling of homophobes and trolls, this one less so. Guy (Help!) 14:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you've seen enough of what goes on in this topic area to make that comment, Guy, because the sources are pretty clear-cut. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, even if we accept the Gamergate proposed decision as neutral (it's not), there's still the other three cases. Banning Carol Moore but not Eric Corbett is inexplicable for any other reason than institutional sexism. Same with banning Andrea James but not James Cantor; in the latter case, Andrea James was rather uncivil, but Cantor is the very model of a civil POV pusher (and a dangerous one at that). Sceptre (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of Arbcom, Sceptre, aren't you topic-banned from this topic that you are stirring up here now??? Carrite (talk) 05:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Sceptre are you aware of the details of these cases or have you just skimmed over them and concluded the issue without any analysis of detail? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I am very aware of the detail of these cases, especially Sexology. Sceptre (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
So you'll be aware of how extremely problematic Andrea James' editing was, then. I seriously don't see that it's useful to try to draw a line between these cases, but the most obvious one is that both involved editors trying to deal with objectionable content in mainspace. If civil POV-pushing works better than edit-warring, I'll have another glass. Formerip (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not disputing Andrea James' editing was problematic, but the refusal of ArbCom to even topic ban Cantor, despite evidence of civil POV pushing/FRINGE advocacy for years, was perhaps more problematic than that. Sceptre (talk) 07:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely. I think it is disgraceful that he is not indefinitely banned from this topic. David Gerard wrote memorably on the subject and ArbCom would be well advised to ask him privately for his views: he is extremely well informed on the subject, IMO, and I don't think anybody could reasonably doubt his Wikipedian credentials. Guy (Help!) 19:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I think I have seen altogether too much: my view is "a plague on all their houses", topic-ban anyone with more than ten edits to the article and get fresh eyes. But then, I freely admit to being deeply cynical about hysterical manufactroversies about video games, a subject which is slightly less important than which leaf will fall off my field maple next. Behaviour around Gamergate has been despicable, and the triviality of the root subject only makes this more shocking. Guy (Help!) 15:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed that the general subject is of video game trolls is "trivial". However, the astounding number of edits related to the "trivial" that have had to be rev del because of gross violations of BLP from the importation of the offsite trolling moves the issue from beyond "trivial". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
The problem here, JzG, is that Gamergate evolved long beyond any "hysterical manufactroversies about video games" into phsychological terrorism fairly quickly, considering someone's dog got killed within the past two weeks because of a false police report filed by someone in the "Gamergate collective" against a detractor. This whole concept of partisan sides is not representative of the actual structure of the controversy. One side is a group (per the vast majority of reliable sources published long since the "impetus") that has organized itself around being able to harass their victims into silence and the support group that formed around the initial victims of harassment. It is not like one side is pro-ethics and the other side is anti-ethics, which is what such terminology would want you to believe. People opposed to Gamergate as the erstwhile movement are opposed to a culture of harassment and threats of violence. You have a group of people who after managing to get a game already fraught with trademark issues and violent content back onto a distribution platform that they want to add their victims of harassment as killable options. I had stepped back from the greater topic area by the time the case had started and I don't plan on going back because the gift I received from one person means Gamergate advocates will constantly use that against me for even wanting to correct a comma on the page. Regardless of Mark Bernstein's original statements that are being parroted throughout the press, the proposed decision does indeed send the message that if you organize your campaign to disrupt Wikipedia offsite, there is nothing that Wikipedia users can do to stop you and they will in fact be banned for it instead.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, regardless of whatever else is right or wrong here, this definitely looks like a problem. Formerip (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I entirely agree. A certain portion of the videogame fan community appears to have gone out of its way to prove tot he world that they are over-entitled arrogant pricks who think that causing real-world shit for people is entirely justified if their prejudices are challenged. I have been a victim of similar behaviour from other groups who cannot tolerate any challenge to their cherished beliefs, and others have too, outside the gaming nonsense. It's not new. The problem is that the whole area is a battleground, and neither side will accept the other being permitted the last word. I think the best way to fix this is for all the partisans to go away and non-partisans to take over. I am sure other ways could be found, but not without constant enforcement action. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
The area is only a battleground because one side turns it into a battleground regardless of the forum of discussion. And I believe it is going to be extremely difficult to find non-partisan people who will want to get involved in dealing with the obvious partisans that aren't going to be banned right away, even with the new sanctions in place to prevent disruption from new and zombie accounts. And the obvious partisans who disrupted the arbitration case and yet go unpunished will be even harder to deal with.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I have always thought of you as clueful: just pretend for a moment that you're one of the other lot and see if you'd phrase that any differently. Guy (Help!) 19:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
JzG, Gamergate literally calls its organized actions "operations". It literally has propaganda posters that it sends across the Internet. Some of these quite literally have been modified from ones in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or the anti-Suffrage movements of the early 20th century. Because, from everything I've seen, they think that WP:NPOV means that they deserve a 50/50 split on coverage, then Wikipedia must present their narrative and completely ignore the extensive analysis of their actions in all media just so that there is no longer a sentence in the article that calls the very situation that caused them to organize as predicated on a lie, or utilize information culled from sources that are full of BLP violations and aren't even what we would consider reliable sources. There was discussion after discussion demanding that Milo Yiannopoulos's articles in favor of Gamergate be added to the page, and these are things with titles like "Feminist Bullies Ruining Video Games". Or you have Carrite demanding that something someone wrote with the pseudonym Gurney Halleck be given credence on the page and then his extreme indignation (which continues to this day) that people called him out on it that it failed WP:ELNO. I approached this topic area as a Wikipedian first and foremost, and that meant I told people that they didn't have consensus for such vast changes, they didn't have reliable sources to support their changes, and at least one editor I had to revert to remove BLP violations. I did not have anything remotely resembling an off-site presence with this subject until I was contacted out of the blue on my Twitter by someone who had a bone to pick with my academic background and my opinion when it came to this topic area. I had entirely intended to keep myself neutral on the matter, but the response I gave began the harassment I still suffer from to this day, which did color my opinion on the subject from then on. What happened at Gamergate controversy, and related pages, is the same as what happens to every other article on a contentious subject where one side of the "debate" as it were (this isn't really a debate anymore as it is a harassment movement) doesn't like how they're being covered on Wikipedia and don't like how the established Wikipedia users are responding to their unreasonable demands. There's threads like that on ANI like daily. You could probably go there now and find at least 2 such threads. But I don't think that Wikipedia has ever had to deal with anything like what's on the scale of Gamergate, with regards to its web presence and the net savvy nature of the fringe movement it's become. These are people on par with Obama birth certificat deniers, Holocaust deniers (they have some in their ranks too), and other such conspiracy theories, rather than being a consumer movement for better ethics in video game journalism, considering that all of their claimed breaches of ethics did not exist or their demands boiled down to "we don't care about story tell us if it plays well". Did I act inappropriately at times? Probably. However, I still maintain thati acted in the best interests of Wikipedia rather than the interests of any other group.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me, Roger, having read quite a lot of the debate around the case, that you are supposed to ignore fairly egregious misbehaviour, such as clear edit waring, battleground and assumptions of bad faith because, on the one hand, the cause is noble, and, on the other, the trolls made them do it. Neither should be an excuse and I, for one, am glad that the committee seems to see it that way. GoldenRing (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • +1, GoldenRing. What the media seems to have gotten wrong, is that editors are not being sanctioned because of they are anti-GG, or whatever content they bring to the table. It's because of their conduct. It's shoddy fact-checking and reporting by the media, including trusting the opinion of an editor who has been topic banned from GamerGate exactly because of his conduct. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Roger Davies more or less precisely correct details the actual content of the ArbCom decision above — but the so-called Reliable Sources all insist that ArbCom has made a retaliatory hit against feminist Wikipedians in its decision, in de facto lockstep with the Gamergaters. Now imagine (and this is easy to imagine) that somebody inserts this "fact" into the article and that you can't restore actual balance because five or so POV warriors are "tending" the article, that any newcomer to the article is banned off as a "single purpose" meatpuppet, that any long-term Wikipedian is voted down by the clique because "reliable sources" do not exist to demonstrate that what Roger says is true — or that if they do exist, they may not be used because they "violate BLP." There, my friends, you have in microcosm the essence of what has gone wrong with the Wikipedia Gamergate article. Carrite (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Addenda: By "no site bans," Roger means "no site bans against the clique of editors who have engaged in battleground behavior to maintain House POV in the Gamergate piece." They are most certainly site banning off The Devil's Advocate, who crossed swords with them. Arbcom aren't even to be bothered with topic banning one of the leading clique members... Arbcom has pretty much punted the football on actually making it possible to fix the one-sided Gamergate article, truth be told... Carrite (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
A larger problem is the willingness of editors to use sources that are not reliable. Op-eds, blog posts, and clearly polemical articles should not be considered reliable sources for anything beyond the fact that their authors have certain opinions (which will often not be relevant to anything - who cares what some random journalist or political commentator happens to think, perhaps echoing others?). If this means there are very few genuinely reliable sources for the Gamergate article, and the whole thing needs to be stripped right back, so be it. I'm not sure we should even have articles on such volatile current controversies, but if we do we should stick with whatever is uncontroversially established from sources that are genuinely reliable, such as whatever is said in straight news reportage, peer-reviewed academic articles (and better still, review articles and meta-analyses), academic monographs, publicly available government data bases, textbooks, established encyclopedias and other reference works, etc. The more we are prepared to use as sources op-eds, polemical articles, etc., with arguments about which ones to use on some pretext or other, and which to exclude on some pretext or other, the more it encourages people to use Wikipedia as a battleground in culture warring... and to forget that they are here to build a neutral, informative encyclopedia. I'm at least pleased to see that the arbcom seems to have taken a strong stance against battleground activity. Metamagician3000 (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
No I mean "No site bans". It currently looks as if TDA will be t-banned,  Roger Davies talk 15:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Carrite, you really need to drop this "house POV" facade. You were called out for providing a link to a website full of invalidated and outright false claims about a living person on the article's talk page and then your "evidence" in the arbitration case that provided the exact same link was removed from the page because of WP:BLP violations. I am sick and tired of you constantly being somehow negatively affected by the fact that you aren't allowed to post a massive BLP violation by proxy. This has nothing to do with "tending the article". It's because anyone with half a brain can see that a website whose author is Gurney Halleck and whose page is basically the manifesto of every disproven talking point. There is nothing with regards to WP:NPOV and WP:BLP that I had done wrong as far as I am aware. However, the same cannot be said for you, Carrite.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Meh, you're the one being found to have engaged inedit-warring and battleground behavior, the one being topic-banned from Gamergate, the one put on a 1-RR for all topics across Wikipedia, and the one who has a block log as long as my arm replete with edit warring and ownership-related blocks. As they say in the NFL: "Scoreboard!!!" Carrite (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
That isn't relevant. Your only contribution to the whole of Gamergate was to post a link that contained all of the false allegations that had caused it to start to begin with and all you've done since is whine that you got called out for it. You deserve a ban as much as I do.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Don't obfuscate and mislead. I posted a suggested edit to a fully locked-down article on the talk page for an external link to a blog post in which the Gamergaters explain themselves and their issue most coherently. You and a couple of the other House POV Horsemen blew a gasket at my temerity. I have edited Gamergate a cumulative total of zero times, how many edits have you made??? That will be your final count, whatever it is... Thank god. Carrite (talk) 04:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Stop using 8chan's terminology. We are not horsemen of anything. We are editors who were doing our damnedest to prevent the BLP violations found in every single page of that blog post you posted from being repeated on the website. What the hell made you think that a blog post authored by a Swordsmaster of House Atreides would even possibly considered a reliable source for anything. You waded into the topic area with a chip on your shoulder. My intent was to improve the article in good faith. Your intent was to push that stupid website of unknown actual authorship and editorial control. And you know what I did in regards to that stupid link you posted? Absolutely nothing. Tarc, NorthBySouthBaranof, Masem, and Strongjam responded to your ill informed proposal and as soon as someone said "This is a bad idea" you went straight to the arbitration committee to complain of bias rather than actually acknowledge the fact that it in no way meets WP:ELNO and is in direct violation of WP:BLP. Regardless of how bad MarkBernstein got his understanding of the debate, the community at large is seeing how incredibly wrong the arbitration committee has been in applying the bans here. My absense on the page, which has been in place since long before you tried to suggest that a blog attributed to a character from Dune could even remotely possibly be an acceptable thing to propose to be added to any article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, I've edited that page you linked to zero times. And I challenge you to find a single edit I made to Gamergate controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that is so incredibly heinous that justifies my yet to be codified ban.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── [redacted per BLP]

Well isn't that terrible. Look, I agree with Guy. Start afresh with new editors in that article, people with a sense of proportion on the shockingly unimportant subject matter. Coretheapple (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
It's "shockingly unimportant" that living people have been subject to vicious slander campaigns using biographies and articles as a venue for character assassination? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
It is shockingly insignificant precisely because of the ridiculously disproportionate acts of partisans. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
The only "partisans" are the slew of accounts dormant for years at a time revived to edit the page without having to deal with semi-protection and the brand new accounts swarming the talk page to drive the long-standing editors mad by asking the same questions over and over, using their numbers to unfairly sway consensus in their favor (the whole issue of having a POV tag on the article for example), and repeatedly editing the article and talk page to repeat the same talking points as when the whole controversy startedthat have long been debunked but they don't like how the organization that they're fighting exists as one of the sources that debunks their claims. Then there's the issue of this real world conflict involving more and more living persons into their target list. Someone else says something Gamergate doesn't like and that adds another article into the topic ban? Wikipedia should have taken a hard line on this before it got to this point. Or the committee should have less cared about recidivism of editors who have been on this website since before it had 2 million articles and instead paid more attention to the damage they mitigated rather than the damage that editors extremely biased in favor of a hate movement accused them of causing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I think there's a more basic structural problem with the ban votes. The situation now is that if ArbCom proposes 1-year bans on half a dozen editors in a case, the difference between who is banned and who isn't comes down to one or two votes. This means that either they are perceived as making a partisan slate of biased bans based on the ideological agenda of any one member who says ban A but not B, or else they negotiate an overall response like "no site bans" out of sight and are accused of cabalism... or both. To solve this, first I think that there is just too big a gap between a 'mere' topic ban and a 1-year site ban that is often effectively permanent, so there should be one or two intermediate positions. And I think that the strongest sanction should take more than a simple majority so it is less contentious when applied. It seems like ArbCom far too often becomes the problem by purging longstanding and highly productive editors when all that was really needed was for somebody to get out a roll of tape and mark the foul line so people can see where it is. Wnt (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

And I'll repost this from the workshop page only because of how this wasted wikidrama and where time should be spent..."My point was that it's controversial by WP standards. Imposing 'the real world' is not doable but not because any POV is superior. Rather the constant complaints about 'POV pushing' from all sides is destructive. Here's a list: Hope Cochran, Stephanie Barish, Holly Liu, Emily Greer, Jessica Tams, Kate Edwards, Kiki Wolfkill, Amy Hennig, Lucy Bradshaw, Jade Raymond. For the blue links, kudos to those editors that created them. For the red ones, it would be nice if all the effort being poured into GamerGate by people interested in gamers, feminism and journalism would focus on people significantly more notable with a much greater impact on the real world (and yes, I know the standard response for asking why some stuff exists and others do not - it's also a great example of where POV interest really intersects the real world)." Google them They are all more notable that Youtubers and Indie game developers. --DHeyward (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward, you have to admit how incredibly patronizing you sound to everyone else. I could swear that one time you also said that people should spend less time arguing on the article and instead play some Halo or whatever game you came up with.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
That would be another of your egregious lies. Post it or STFU. I never said it. --DHeyward (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Another? How many "egregious lies" have I made? Regardless, your extremely patronizing message reminded me of another patronizing message I had seen someone post in regards to this, even if it wasn't you.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Pointing out capable, strong and distinguished women that have managed to thrive and be successful is not patronizing. I'm sorry that they don't need rescuing by self-appointed wiki-guardians and therefore their story is not notable to you. Perhaps you need to redefine what patronizing is. --DHeyward (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
You're going "stop working on this unimportant shit and look at this more important shit". That's patronizing when Gamergate has outed me to the world.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion on what gamergate has done to you regarding 'the world.' My concern is how you and others are bringing the world to wikipedia. This is not your platform for justice or right great wrongs. --DHeyward (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
That is an entirely inaccurate depiction of the events. NBSB, Tarc, Tara, TRPoD, Masem, and myself were not using Wikipedia to right any great wrongs. We were preventing massive BLP violations from being perpetrated by people who either came to Wikipedia anew or had rediscovered their account and had a bone to pick. We did not turn it into a battleground mentality. The battleground mentality was imported by Gamergate, considering all of their terminology is intrinsically military-themed. We are not at fault here. The problem is that no one else on Wikipedia dared to help us when we recognized the problems for what they were and instead the people who were editing the pages in bad faith made the largest stink about it and spent all of their time posting every single diff they could out of context to present the case the way they saw fit and forced us to have to respond to the constant repetition of falsified information. Look at Talk:Gamergate controversy and tell me that you want to wade into that quagmire and tell the latest editor to get autoconfirmed that the allegations have been constantly decried as false. Except you have pushed for the very opposite by arguing that the allegations being described should be something completely different from what all the reliable sources discuss so they are actually true allegations.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
This is exactly the "righting great wrongs" activity people are talking about. There are ways to handle BLP violations without making it a battleground, which is something you and others failed at, and that ArbCom didn't punish everyone who is the most guilty is perhaps more damning than anything else project-wise right now. There are plenty of editors in the space that do not want BLP violations in the article who also succeed at not acting the way you are here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
This is a toxic as all hell topic area that no one wanted to get involved with considers that anyone with half a brain realizes that the offsite nature of the real world conflict will make their lives a living hell. Gorilla Warfare has found that out herself after everyone found out she rescinded her recusal from the case. And you're one to talk.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I regret getting involved in it as well. Alas, someone has to do it, right? And notice that I'm generally able to without being insufferable about it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know much about "Gamergate", but I do know that there is something a bit odd about "inviting neutral editors to participate", "inviting uninvolved administrators to participate", and "inviting review of problematic articles" when you're handing down a slew of topic bans against everyone involved. I have a feeling that any new editors won't be viewed as "neutral" for long, and you'd have to be very brave, stupid, or crazy to willingly step into that minefield. So I am a bit skeptical that the ArbCom's "ban them all" approach is going to produce any better results for the articles in question. Everyking (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. The climate of fear ArbCom is creating is hardly conducive to bringing non-partisan editors to the area. KonveyorBelt 23:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
On the contrary, knowing that people will be sanctioned if they are uncivil, use Wikipedia as a battleground, insist on citing polemical sources, etc., should make good uninvolved editors much less fearful about editing some of the controversial articles. I'm very pleased with the stand that's being taken by the ArbCom. It sends a positive message to good editors that they have some redress if they're treated badly by POV-warriors. Editors who are capable of being civil, dispassionate, and scholarly in their approach, looking to build neutral and accurate articles, have nothing to fear from the ArbCom, though life can be made difficult for them by other editors. This is exactly why we need the ArbCom. As far as I've been able to follow, the arbitrators are doing a careful and high-quality job in sorting out who really needs to step away from certain articles. Metamagician3000 (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
If all that topic-banning really gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling (not to mention the ArbCom's long history of banning good contributors along with bad ones), well, I wish you the best of luck in strolling merrily across that minefield. As they say, fools rush in where angels fear to tread. Everyking (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Heather Bresch

Hi Jimbo. I was wondering if you had a minute to take a look at this BLP page. About two-thirds of the current article is focused on controversy. In comparison, in-depth profiles in Barrons and other local pubs[9][10] give her very different treatment. This diff has some links to my mostly unsuccessful solicitations for review of the article and/or my draft at BLPN, IRC and user Talk pages. I have my usual COI. There is some discussion on the Talk page that is ongoing, so I don't think I can quite claim to be taking advantage of your offer as a "last resort", but thought it may still qualify as the type of page and situation you may have an interest in. CorporateM (Talk) 07:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

MBA section? Um. I hate he-said-she-said rehashings of events like this. Is there a single neutral independent overview we can sum up in a short para? Guy (Help!) 14:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok. I rolled up my sleeves and did a quick study. My first impression, reading our current article, was to ask myself "Is she even notable at all, outside of this one incident?" I had never heard of Mylan. But, as it turns out, Mylan is a company with over 6 billion dollars in revenue and 22,000 employees. Clearly the CEO is notable.
So our current article utterly fails to be a quality biography.
In your view is there a problem of POV pushing here, or is it just that someone eagerly came in and wrote up a lot about the controversy without really considering how it made the article imbalanced. I.E. do you think there is a problem here that will be made more difficult, or is it just a matter of someone coming in and fixing the article up?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Or, Jimbo, someone might have a different sense of "balance"... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Who? Has anyone put forward any argument that the article with the huge section on the scandal and cursory other sections is balanced? It's one thing to randomly hypothesize that someone "might" have a different idea - but I haven't seen any actual arguments.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Like you, I felt there was reasonable-enough consensus that there was a significant undue issue, especially given that there is already a dedicated article for the controversy and the summary on her page was half the length of the full, dedicated article, rather than following Wikipedia:Summary Style. Of course, the only way to address this undue issue completely is to fill up the rest of the article with her early life, job titles and claims to notability (female Fortune 500 CEO and lobbyist that pushed through a few notable pieces of pharmaceutical legislation). My sense is that the total body of literature positions her view that she did earn a degree as a borderline fringe view, so I do not contest NPOV the way one might expect; material on this subject should be significantly critical of her claims and explain, but not legitimize, her perspective.
The controversy does seem to be mostly focused on the actions of university staff. The internal investigation the college conducted found no wrongdoing on Bresch's behalf for merely inquiring as to her degree status, but said the college staff reacted to public pressure and the desire to protect an important alumni by manipulating records. Therefore, I am concerned that the dedicated article is named after her, whereas the primary focus is that of the college staff. However, since the subject of the article is her alleged degree, I have no better titles to propose as this is probably the title that makes the most sense for readers, even if it is unfair to a BLP. CorporateM (Talk) 17:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Considering the school itself is more "involved" in the controversy than the recipient, apparently, maybe West Virginia University M.B.A. controversy might work better? John Carter (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
@John Carter It might be worthwhile to start an article-naming discussion. I think naming the article after Heather is actually more specific/better, but it is a fairly trivial benefit to Wikipedia and a substantial opportunity for harm to a BLP. Probably consensus would just vary based on who shows up that day and how they feel about BLP issues. CorporateM (Talk) 19:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Just in case anyone has missed it: CorporateM is working on behalf of Mylan, and Bresch is Mylan's CEO: [11]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
    So? Why the hostility? He disclosed did he not? The company and the CEO have a right to request a review of the situation to make sure the article isn't unfairly negative. Jehochman Talk 19:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
In my experience, when an editor has a strong point-of-view and is unhappy about someone influencing an article to deviate from their viewpoint, they almost always focus on the editor, rather than the content. Passive observers may see Nomoskedasticity's comments as the kind of COI abuse that the PR industry is often complaining about, but the same hostility would be targeted against any editor that attempted to correct the page. Probably the same accusations of COI manipulation would occur even if the editor did not actually have one and it is even oten PR pros themselves that engage in similar bullying and allegations of corrupted motives, etc.. CorporateM (Talk) 20:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I didn't take Nomoskedasticity's remark here as hostile. It is a fact that people should be aware of. CorporateM is acting here as a paid advocate for the subject of the biography. He's followed not only the letter of Wikimedia Foundation policy, but also the best practice of the bright line rule. I'll go a step further in praise as well. It would be entirely possible to follow both my bright line rule and the letter of policy and still be an annoying nitwit by wikilawyering endless on hopeless points. He isn't even doing that. So while we should all cut him some slack, it's also ok to make sure that all participants in the dialogue are aware of his status. If we are to have a credible sustained campaign against people doing things the wrong way, we have to laud and support people who do things the right way.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
CorporateM is good people. COIs are always openly declared, and where consensus is against, it is accepted with good grace. Guy (Help!) 15:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I re-read Nomo's comments on the Talk page. Jimbo is correct actually. It was the speculation that minor copyediting items were some kind of intentional manipulation that made me feel mistreated, but this kind of thing is actually very common. I shouldn't have been so hasty to call his comments abusive. I think most of the discussions ongoing right now about article-naming/merging are areas where experienced editors may reasonably disagree and I will therefore abstain per my usual. I appreciate so many editors initiating thoughtful discussions and Jimbo proving once more that his Talk page is an effective board to draw attention to them. At some point (and there is absolutely WP:NORUSH, I hope we can take a look at the draft and get it GAN-ready like I do with most pages I have a COI with. CorporateM (Talk) 17:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Sure. Itchy trigger fingers. You're used to it by now I think :-) Guy (Help!) 22:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I certainly agree that the Bresch article was ridiculously POV at the time that CorporateM raised the issue here. Better now. I'm not really bothered by the COI because look, this is a BLP, and anyone, including Bresch herself, would be within their rights to come here if BLPN didn't do anything, which was the case here. We do have bright-line rules but we also have policies of decency we have to follow on biographies, and it's ridiculous for this person's bio to be dominated by that controversy. However, it does have to be mentioned. I don't know about a separate article, either. That seems a bit weird. Coretheapple (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Heather Bresch M.B.A. controversy

Seriously? Heather Bresch M.B.A. controversy? Who the hell thinks that's a good idea? This is a minor semi-public figure, and we have an entire article on a teapot tempest relating to her, just because people can't cover it in the main article without bloating it out. Which leaves the indelible impression that the main article exists only as a WP:COATRACK. Guy (Help!) 15:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

That would be retired editor HoboJones, who created the piece in 2008, as you are aware from the template you put on his talk page. Carrite (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
For values of "me" that translate to Twinkle. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely insane to have a separate article. Coretheapple (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. It deserves good coverage but good coverage in the BLP would give undue weight to the controversy.
Jimmy, as Jehochman says, "...just because somebody is a paid PR person doesn't mean that they are wrong or that they are unethical." I've worked with CorporateM on a couple of COI articles, as have many other editors in good standing. In my opinion he's the very model of a "paid advocacy" editor. We're dealing with the opposite kind of COI editor in ArbCom right now. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Sanction free zones?

I know that by tradition this page is considered to be more or less exempt from some sanctions, as it is one of the places where people who are experiencing problematic misconduct from others can appeal to an authority. It has recently happened that Eric Corbett got a short two day block for mentioning the Gender Gap task force in passing at the talk page of WikiProject Editor Retention. There are already several people who have been, in a sense, "empowered" to remove disruptive or problematic comments on that page, me among them, who did not perceive that passing mention as necessarily being sanctionable. Also, in at least my opinion, I think some of the more likely individuals to post there regarding their concerns are editors who may be under sanctions of some sort and at a state where they are considering leaving the project, and preventing good editors, even those with some problems, from leaving is the primary purpose of that group. Do you think that there might be any way to somehow establish some page other than your user talk page which could be a sanction-free zone where editors could, well, vent, or safely express their concerns, even if doing so might violate some sort of existing sanctions, particularly thinking of editors who may be considering leaving the project if they can't find a place to do that? John Carter (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

May I recommend for all your whining and caterwauling needs... (Eric has been tossed from that site, or more properly, came to a mutual agreement to leave, so this doesn't apply to him). You will also find there are certain Wikimedia lists that are amenable to grumpy complaints about En-WP or Commons processes. A couple of those banned off En-WP in the Gendergap Task Force case have found a home of friendly friends at the WMF's Gendergap-l mailing list (Archive at ). In the same vein but with a broader focus is Wikimedia-l (Archive at ). Both of these are amenable only to certain kinds of snarkiness or complaint, mind you, I recently got tossed off the former for trolling by the outgoing moderator (and would have a life expectancy there of 0.03 days with new moderators Lightbreather and Carol Moore), so that is to be borne in mind. But that is an option for the "I hate Arbcom because........" crowd who doesn't share the common orientation at Wikipediocracy. Finally there is always IRC, which has long been the home of backstage carping and machiavellian plotting... Carrite (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Obviously the editors who are engaged in personal attacks about Gamergate above, while ArbCom is still working on the case, consider this talk page to be their sanction-free zone. I don't think that they would be at each other in the same way on Talk: Gamergate controversy or on an ArbCom talk page, with its notices that the ArbCom is there and will take incivility into account. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Lua support on Wikimedia

I understand when it comes to helping beginners of Lua programming, no one alone is obligated to take all the burdens, but from my point of view, the support (teaching the beginners instead of giving them a readily working module without explaining anything) from veterans is, sadly, very lacking. I understand how to use if/else logical operator and the basic table (because they're if/switch in the more programming form), but still struggling to understand why and how recursion works (obviously it doesn't have any wiki markup equivalence). I don't know how to put the examples from external tutorials into Wikimedia and make them functional. Someone else asked in help talk:Lua debugging about how mediawiki's debug console works (because even in the current version the help page isn't helpful in any sense to beginners), but no reply from anyone for more than 4 months. I don't know either and that's why my checkered edit histories of all modules I have touched. It seems most veterans are working on some offline Lua application before submitting the codes to Wikimedia so the module is less likely to result in script error. Such routine is never mentioned anywhere in Wikimedia or MediaWiki. Honestly I don't feel home the first month Wikimedia introduced Lua, and it continues as is today. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 13:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Try asking folks at Wikipedia_talk:Lua. NE Ent 13:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
And then still no one bother to explain how debug console works. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Specifically for the debug console, there is Help:Lua debugging which is linked from Wikipedia:Lua. For specific questions, the link provided by NE Ent is useful. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Help:Lua debugging contains not a word scarcely resembles "console". How did that answer my question in the first place? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 15:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
For the details of Mediawiki's Lua extensions and interfaces, you want mw:Extension:Scribunto/Lua reference manual (about which you are correct in that it doesn't seem to be linked from anywhere for beginners that it should be), its talk page, and slides 36 et seq. of which go with the last half of the talk in the video at the top of mw:Lua/Tutorial. EllenCT (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)