User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 111

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

Question about BLP and rape allegations

Drew Doughty, a star player for the Los Angeles Kings, was recently cleared of rape allegations in relation to an incident from this spring. Predictably, the media has been all over the story, and so there are a plethora of reliable sources on the matter (1200 results for "drew doughty rape" on google news vs 1730 for "drew doughty"). My question is, given that the police elected not to press charges, should it nonetheless be covered in the article? It clearly passes all tests for notability and verifiability, but I have reservations due to the BLP aspects. On the one hand, I feel it's unfair to him to enshrine this incident on his page when the police felt there wasn't anything to the allegations, but on the other hand it certainly has been a major story and may deserve coverage on that ground alone. I feel pretty conflicted about it, and would appreciate any guidance you might be able to offer.

Thanks, Throwaway85 (talk) 02:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what past practice has been, but my gut it that this would merit one sentence, noting that allegations were made (sources), and that the police felt there wasn't anything to these allegations (sources). That way, people coming to his bio will see that the allegations are acknowledged, and the release from those allegations noted as well. I do note Wikipedia:BLPCRIME, which suggests accusations not be placed until a conviction is secured --KarlB (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Mention unproven claims in broad subarticle, not bio page: A reasonable approach to writing about notable allegations would be in a subarticle of wider coverage, such as "Legal issues of Drew Doughty" which would focus on multi-year scope, and also consider impacts to him rather than treat the text as aggressor versus victim. In trying to avoid wp:SOAPBOXing about specific short-term events, and focus on a long-term view, the title of the subarticle should convey a multi-year topic, but within that topic, then a notorious set of events could be given more text, in proportion to the amount of coverage, over multiple years. Such broad-scope subarticles will require more research, to include legal issues from previous years, and not start the focus as "Let's talk about the recent unproven rape allegations" (no, mention more topics). Instead, each legal issue would be given adequate coverage, in the subarticle, where any unfounded allegations would be described in terms of impact to his contracts, family attitudes, or impact to interacting with fans, because he is the main subject of the article, not opinions of other people seeing themselves as victims or suffering. The overarching goal is to provide NPOV coverage of the allegations in a broader subarticle that deters wp:GRANDSTANDing about events that would have sensational appeal. In that manner, the widespread notable coverage of events is described, but the subarticle is never available to empower "yellow journalism" about a recent event. Wikipedia's guidelines about these cases are still weak, in regard to deterring sensational article titles and casting aspersions on those accused of misconduct. Hence, the placement of text outside the main article, under a neutral title, with broad consideration of some related multi-year events, can really dampen the impact which would otherwise taint a main BLP article with hot-topic, or tabloid phrases. Always reduce the space available for wp:SOAPBOXing or wp:GRANDSTANDing by having broader coverage. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Never believe those approximate Google numbers. It's an advertising tactic, meant to make you feel like they're some unstoppable juggernaut, when really, their index however impressive is not that good. When you page forward you get 153 Google News results for "drew doughty rape" [1] and 576 results for "drew doughty" [2] (quotation marks not used in the searches). Wnt (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Google doesn't show duplicate results, which might account for the discrepancy. Regardless, I wasn't trying to make any empirical statement, but rather show that it had been a major media story. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • If you must include something in the main article, include it in a phrasing like "so-and-so was cleared of such-and-such charges, which got extensive coverage in the press." - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 13:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Bluntly, this pretty much comes down to being a false accusation, but as is usually the case, the accusation alone is enough to stain the person wrongfully accused permanently. The question for me, is are we going to play a role in that staining? Resolute 13:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Saying it's a false allegation would be as serious a BLP vio as wrongly including, as we would be saying the purported victim lied about being raped. All we know is that the police investigated, decided there wasn't enough evidence to pursue charges, and further claimed that the accuser had "serious credibility issues". That last clause would lead most people to believe she was lying, but we shouldn't take that stance. It may well be that she was very drunk at the time and was unable to relate the story in a consistent manner to the investigators. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Should allegations of serious wrongdoing which never led to charges being brought be included in a BLP? No, absolutely not. There is no good argument for including such allegations, and many good arguments for excluding them. It doesn't matter if parts of the media have given them coverage; Wikipedia should aspire to higher standards than the tabloids. As for the suggestion by Wikid77 above that a separate article on Legal issues of Drew Doughty should be created, I'm alarmed at the idea. 'Legal issues of X' is a terrible idea for an article, and any such creation should be deleted as a BLP violation on sight. Robofish (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
So what's the difference between this case and the allegations against Assange? Should we delete that section if he's cleared? Clearly that case is more notable, and has received far greater coverage, but I can't see why one BLP should include unproven rape allegations and the other not based on first principles alone. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Subarticles to offset or refute charges: When a person is formally charged, such as by local police, with criminal charges, then the allegations rise to a level often mentioned in many Wikipedia articles. Again, when the charges have not been proven in a court of law, then coverage in a subarticle would avoid wp:SOAPBOXing in a main bio-page. For Assange, I think the subarticle should have been enough, as "Assange v The Swedish Prosecution Authority" (about a legal issue not named in the subarticle title). Of course people have been falsely convicted in many courts, such as DNA acquittals of U.S. convictions or over 50% of all recent grade-1 convictions (primo grado) in Italy. The main goal is to reduce, or hide coverage of sensational events, especially negative, by moving to a subarticle, where there is ample space for NPOV balance of opposing viewpoints which could overwhelm a main article. For example, with allegations, a subarticle could detail a possible alibi, with the suspect documented as being elsewhere during the event, as noted by sources, or questioning the accuracy of evidence, or reliability of witnesses by listing other known cases of refuted testimony by witnesses who have a track record of incorrect, or possibly fabricated, statements. That was the situation with Dominique Strauss Kahn, later cleared of charges, who was indicted in a "New York minute" (based on rapidly confirmed DNA evidence) for suspicious events which happened only a few days earlier, without time for prosecutors to extensively check the witness's background to see if she had conspired with false cases in the past. In the U.S., police have reportedly planted drug evidence in the backseat of patrol cars to charge suspects who were "too smart" and made police mad that the suspects would get away with some crime. A Catholic priest might console people that their false convictions offset the times they got away with committing some other sins. Hence, the truth is evasive, and so WP has used subarticles to try to specifically clarify or balance the relative merits of evidence, where the weight of details would be wp:UNDUE in a main BLP article. Even if allegations are found untrue, the higher truth might be the psychological damage, or reputation, or other suffering to people of extraordinary abilities who are unfairly judged. In such cases, the higher truth is that the allegations were notoriously false, as with criminal trials in Italy, where over half (>50%) of convicts (some imprisoned for years) have been later cleared (oops, sorry) of sensational felony charges, rapes, sexual torture, or murders. Meanwhile, a subarticle has the space available to properly address the major related issues (as noted in sources) and defuse accusations or rumors which would be wp:UNDUE weight in a main BLP article. Does that explanation adequately clarify why subarticles are used in these cases? -Wikid77 (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't really asking about sub-articles, but rather the inclusion or lack thereof of mention of the incident in the first place. Both Assange and Doughty are accused of rape, and neither has been charged. Yet the one has extensive coverage of the accusation and resulting legal issues in his article, while the other does not. I'm not using Assange's case to argue that Doughty's article should mention the allegations, but rather am using it as a foil to question the principles in play. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Please weigh-in at this AN/I report

I think every point worth making has been made at least once, and continuing is not likely to be helpful, friends. Dennis Brown - © (WER) 13:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

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.

I am getting very discouraged here lately, as I have only been trying to improve articles as best as I can. Recently I have been having some serious disruptions/intimidation/harassment issues and so I opened an AN/I report. It turns out, as things are run here now according to some admins, if you take a complaint to AN/I, then you are considered as guilty as the user you are reporting. Indeed an admin recently commented: "Also remember, that when you file at ANI, all of your behaviours come under the microscope too ... are you sure you're doing this correctly?" Is this really how AN/I is supposed to work? Imagine if assault victims had to defend their related behaviours while pressing charges against an offender. The same admin called me "pathetic" and told me to "grow the fuck up", all for reporting edit-warring and abusive/disruptive editing. Do you think this is how admins should behave?

Please take 5-10 minutes to review this thread, please. Thank you very much Mr. Wales. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget to advise me GabeMc when you report me ... and don't forget to add the whole context. You were in the middle of a childish situation between you and another editor, which led to an ANI report. You then continued your edit-warring and filed an AN/3rr against the other editor while the ANI was still on. You were refusing to accept any responsibility or advice, and continued your childish bickering with the other editor across multiple fora. You continued to frustrate the hell out of the community. Yes, I think you need to grow up. Oh, and the part about "your behaviour comes under the microscope" - um, it says that when you file at ANI, and that was not even related to a situation you were involved in. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
One thing is clear at the Administrator's Noticeboard (for Incidents), there is a very clear lack of decorum, politeness, and professionality by some participants. The general atmosphere at AN/I is very charged and combative. The general attitude expressed by "all of your behaviours come under the microscope too" is not one of seeking to educate and help an editor get on the right track, but a challenge that simply serves to attack people who often don't know how Wikipedia works.
At the top of the AN/I page, it says "Do not clutter discussions here with irrelevant side-discussions", yet this is more often a rule of thumb for participants at AN/I, who devolve from a debate on the issues, to one about the editors. It isn't as bad as Mos Eisley, but at times it is a wretched hive of scum and villainy. Even if GabeMc were simply midunderstanding the situation here and BWilkins is 100% correct on his present point, the overall point is very valid. Our eternal admins are not perfect, they are human, they make mistakes, but when they do make a mistake, it is usually met with contempt when anyone happens to notice. I don't recall whether I have actually seen an apology for poor decision making or questionable blocks. I do what I can to try and focus debate on policy issues and not on unrelated personal attacks there, but even this is met with a bit of disdain, as if my efforts are merely dilatory.
However, as with anything complicated, I reserve judgement. I am almost 100% certain that most actions by the admins on Wikipedia are unseen, thankless, subtle, and excellently virtuous. But if those actions we see are rife with moralizing, resentful, personal attacks, or are characterized by a lack of honest admission of human frailty, I lose hope for them. -- Avanu (talk) 00:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
AGF applies to ANI as well. From what I have seen ANI is usaully quite civil with the occasional comment going to far but with others responding to the incivility etc. I don't think that there are the level of personal attacks as Avanu suggests; commenting on editors at ANI can be a relevant thing to do. I don't think this is fair or accurate either: "Our eternal admins are not perfect, they are human, they make mistakes, but when they do make a mistake, it is usually met with contempt when anyone happens to notice". Claiming something is a personal attack or uncivil etc when it is not can be disruptive itself. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Looking at AN/I en masse, IRWolfie is right. Most reports at AN/I are handled quickly and with civility. That is not the problem. I might liken it to a man who is imminently reasonable and professional when he deals with his co-workers, his boss, the grocer, and his wife, BUT he screams at his kids and beats them. We might say he is 'usually civil' and be right. But it is still a mess and still awful. -- Avanu (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
BWilkins, this is not a formal report of any kind that would require I notify you. At least not that I am aware of. This is a talk page, not a noticeboard. Anyway, I stand by my comments and actions. You were not at all helpful IMO, if anything you have only made matters worse, and your hostility toward me was unbecoming an admin IMO. Also, I was not part of the problem as you have assumed and erroneously stated here and elsewhere. I was restoring a recently promoted FA back to it's MoS compliant version, that passed FAC only days prior to the full-blown edit-war, which began as light sabotage on the talk page a week before that. I wasn't edit-warring, you are incorrect about this. A more in-depth reading of the totality of the situation would certainly reveal this. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm ... I was never hostile towards you. Frustrated for being in the middle of trying to resolve your situation in one spot, only to find you spreading the issue across multiple noticeboards and behaving very poorly overall. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I think you can understand that "frustrated" can come across as hostile to someone already in a dispute. It's a mild and subtle WP:BATTLEGROUND-ish mental state that's difficult to avoid. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 12:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
BWilkins, you called me childish, pathetic and you told me to "grow the f--- up", where I come from, that's called unprovoked hostility. BTW, AN/I has completely vindicated me, showing how wrong you were all along. My advice to you is to look a little deeper into an issue before you weigh-in at AN/I accusing all parties involved of being as guilty as the one they reported. Also, guilty or not, I do not think anyone should be treated the way I was treated by you and others at AN/I. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I perhaps may have I called your actions "pathetic" ... not you. I'm also unsure where you got "vindicated at ANI" - I recommended to you to voluntarily undertake an interaction ban" instead of forcing the community to implement one - unfortunately, you decided to force the community to implement that interaction ban. Your definition of "vindicated" seems a bit off (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
How was I vindicated? Well, the user I reported was topic-banned for one year, I was not punished for my part. The IB is largely protective IMO. Isn't that vindicated, that the party I reported was banned and I wasn't? You assumed I was as much a part of the problem as they were, you could not have been more wrong about this. Also, I have never been through that before, so your advice wasn't helpful. A simple note on my talk page advising me would have been helpful. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
But my only discussions were related to the hostile environment the 2 of you had created, not the topic ban of the other editor. As such, my ONLY "requirement" in this entire situation was to see either a voluntary or enforced topic ban. My advice to voluntarily be interaction-banned was, in hindsight, brilliant. It's unfortunate that rather than see the advice for what it was, it's now a community-enforced situation. Please note: this is also not about "winning" - recommending an interaction ban was about protecting you, the project, AND the other editor - I have never had a horse in this race (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I never said I "won" anything, this was never about winning, this was about reporting and preventing disruption and editor abuse. I said I was vindicated because you implied I was as guilty as the user I filed the report on. I said you were not helpful, and I think your actions are unbecoming an admin IMO. For example, today you made this sexually explicit, and battleground-esque comment at AN/I: "I did, indeed, whip out my gigantic "admin phallus" (it's huge) and somewhat successfully temporarily resolve the current situation: the edit-warring". Perhaps a joke, but certainly an innappropriate one, especially at AN/I and made by an admin. I assume there are more examples where that came from, but I hope I am wrong about this. This is one example of why I sometimes make comments about inappropriate admins and how their actions at times can make for an uncomfortable and hostile editing environment. Perhaps you should take Mr. Wales advice (read suggestion) as you suggested I take your advice and take 6 months off of admining before you require the community to desysop you itself. Isn't that pretty much what you told me, that I should follow your advice? Now you aren't folowing Mr. Wales' advice to voluntarily desysop for a while, seems a contradiction of philosophy. See, when the shoe is on the other foot its not so simple is it? Why should I have taken your suggestion to voluntarily step-back yet you seem to be ignoring Mr. Wales' nearly identicle suggestion? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? On ANI this morning, an editor stated: "He may not be the only one looking at it but he's the only one who waved his big admin-phallus" - so my re-quoting of them is not out of line. Again, context here. Picking and choosing bits of a conversation to poorly supplement your argument is part of the reason the community was forced to create an interaction ban. I personally have nothing against you, and I would encourage some greater maturity from you as you move along in your editing. Good luck. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Are you really going to leave it there Bwilkins, with a personal attack on my maturity level? You dropped the ball and made a poor choice about who was to blame for the disruption at Beatles related articles. Also, to speak to me about maturity is condescending, I'm not the one being obscene on a website that ought to be friendly to families and children. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
What website would that be? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
This one, with repeated references to his genitals and using the f-word regularly. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


My views on this are quite simple. An admin telling a user to "grow the fuck up" is absolutely unacceptable under any circumstances and is ground for immediate desysopping. If we care about having a serious, thoughtful, kind, adult and mature community (which I assume was the sentiment behind that unseemly outburst) then we have to model that behavior ourselves as admins. There's a bit of sad irony in behaving in a juvenile and bullying fashion in an attempt to get others to behave better. Bwilkins, I recommend that you turn in your bit and take a break from being an admin for 6 months and then return if you feel you can handle the job in a more responsible fashion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That would be nice, wouldn't it? Sadly, language like that is quite common nowadays, not just among admins but among established users in general. Anyone who criticizes this is part of the "civility police" and is being told to shut it and grow a thicker skin. --Conti| 13:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, if that's true, that needs to change. We know that editor recruitment and retention is a key issue - you don't get there by behaving like bullies, you get there by being friendly and helpful... but also by being firm about asking people to leave positions of responsibility, or possibly even the community altogether, if they are generating a toxic atmosphere.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The pot can call the kettle black Penyulap 03:21, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)
  • The issues about admins being "civility police" is more related to the fact that admins should be tolerating heat in discussions that are on topic, and we shouldn't interfere with an otherwise fruitful discussion for the sake of enforcing rules when we haven't been asked to. We shouldn't block someone if they say "that is bullshit", for example, although some admins disagree. The rules are different for admins for good reason, as when we accept the bit, we accept the bridle as well, and we are expected to show a little more decorum and restraint, and this was clearly outside those expectations. Desysoping without a showing that it is a pattern seems a bit strong, however. I try to encourage other admins to speak out when they see it, and do so myself, although it isn't always greeted warmly and sometimes flatly dismissed. And yes, this is absolutely an editor retention concern, and developing a culture that finds it unacceptable would be the goal. Dennis Brown - © 15:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Dennis Brown, are you suggesting that if a pattern of this behaviour could be found on BWilkins part that you may change your mind in regard to his voluntary desysoping. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
(ec, to Jimo Wales last statement) Hear hear! Thank you Jimbo Wales for considering my own plea section titled "Help!" a few days ago. Your light steps changed an ANI incident that was spiraling out of control. The toxic atmosphere there has been truly horrible. Self-selection is a big factor: the toxic atmosphere attracts the worst, repels or burns out the best. It has been truly truly awful.
P.S. This very edit by me was edit-conflicted and i received notice of a new ANI brought against me. A huge aspect of the horror of ANI are the numerous catch-22's now present in wikipedia, some identified within the Wikiproject Editor Retention that dennis brown is involved with, that i am just exploring. Just one catch-22 is that it is there is no acceptable way to note that a harassing editor is harassing you, because noting anything negative is deemed a personal attack. --doncram 15:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
It's for darned sure that repeatedly calling them "evil" is not an acceptable way to note it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
So we rise above it. Civility isn't just in the words we use, but it is also expressed in how we respond to others. There is a time for righteous indignation, of course, but more often, we ought to simply rise above it. -- Avanu (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
All, as I desired to provide some non-public information, please be advised that I have e-mailed Mr. Wales this morning, and await his response. Be aware that the public admonishment by the "boss", and indeed, knowing that I let him and the community down is perhaps more of a lashing that anyone can ever expect - and I hope none of you receive. Considering the focus that I personally have on civility (as seen in part by some of my essays, templates and overall actions), this is (as some have said) not typical for me. Please, note, however, that my phrasing is only a minor part in the situation that the OP is requesting assistance in - I encourage you all to assist them with resolution in their incident without allowing my inappropriate statement to detract/be a red herring from the overall situation. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I haven't read your email yet, but thank you so much for this comment. We all make mistakes. The key is that we accept and understand that we can make a positive difference with kind words and an insistence on high standards for ourselves (even in the face of extreme provocation!).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
For what it is worth Bwilkins is the admin to which I refer to in the thread I created about an admin brushing off an editor who came for help. Bwilkin's "grow the ___ up" attitude has long existed and is not new nor rare. If anyone wishes to review the number of unblock requests that Bwilkins "reviews" and then denies versus those that he actually reverses they will see also a pattern of rubber stamping blocks and bans by others and rarely (if ever) seeing one that was done that should be reversed. In fact I had to bring to AN/I one that he denied and unblock request by someone and it was undid over his objections. Also, it's been awhile since I've been around but I do believe shortly before I went on extended leave the Community decided on a consensus that removing things from your talk page including the right to remove unblock requests after they have been denied. Bwilkins recently chided another editor for removing it, while the right of removal is controversial it shows pattern of conduct with many other incidents. I commend Bwilkins for his apology above but reiterate that this is an ongoing and common occurance and that desysop really should be looked into for this particular admin.Camelbinky (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I have addressed CB's rather odd interpretation of the last in a series of threads from my talkpage in the thread above (that I had not seen until now). For CB's edification, editors may not remove declined unblock requests while the block is in force, as per policy. And yes, I decline and accept a wide range of unblock requests - it's not a task that will make you friends in most situations, just like many admin tasks. I do, however, review each carefully and work my butt off to try and get most of them actually unblocked if I can. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes - full support for these comments - Youreallycan 16:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
My perspective is a bit different, I suppose. I'm not as inclined to want to desysop as quickly, but I am wanting to create a culture where admins are a bit more free to criticize their fellow admins. I have felt less than welcomed on some admin talk pages (and email) when I have made an observation about conduct. I am a "new" admin (but an old man) and perhaps that is part of their doubts, although it shouldn't matter. I would rather try to get us all working as a team, equal with the community, and try to reduce the "us vs. them" attitude that is prevalent on what is now both sides of the issue. I think we need to engage more and ostracize less, which is one of the goals of the Project. This is why I've supported RFC/U being empowered to deal with sysop issues, including having more options than "nothing" or "desysop" for solutions. And why I've tried to get both admins and non-admins involved with the editor retention issues equally. Being forced to deal with sysop problems only at ANI or ArbCom is less than optimal in most cases. I would rather extend a little good faith with Bwilkins and open up a dialog, encourage him to become part of the solution, to help develop and adopt new and more flexible standards for sysoping. Personally, I think he is a good guy, even while I disagree with some of his methods. In the long run, we need to create a culture of kinder adminship, not by pushing people away, but by bringing them into the fold. Dennis Brown - © 16:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • FYI, Mr. Wales, as someone who has worked with BWilkins extensively, I absolute think you are wrong in your recommendation to BWilkins, and I have a few reasons for it. Let me explain:
    • First (and of least importance), I have worked with Bwilkins and he has been an exemplary administrator in every way, save perhaps this time. Removing the bit from him would be bad because he's just a really good admin.
    • Second off (of middle importance), slipping and using foul language is not ideal, but it is not at all grounds for removal of his sysop bit. At very worst, he should be asked "please don't do that." I realize that swearing is not ideal (especially when telling someone they're being disruptive), but it is common on Wikipedia. Yes, he said it while censuring someone, but to assume good faith, the word itself was not directed toward the user: it was more just an exasperated way of expressing "my goodness, why are you guys so disruptive."
    • Third off (most importantly - please read this if you read nothing else in my post), as someone who has handled the edit warring noticeboard, I absolutely am familiar with the tendency of disruptive editors to be... well, litigious and disruptive, and how frustrating that can be. Being willing to wade 5 feet deep in the cesspool that is content disputes is the hallmark of an administrator who's actually doing his job by looking into the dispute. However, with all the wikilawyering, personal attacks, disruption, etc. that go on there it is very easy to become exasperated with the users in these disputes. Those of us who are willing to actually willing delve into this anyway are quite likely to hit some form of snap point. So immediately punishing one of the very few administrators who is actually willing to wade into the stinkhole is a terrible idea. Yes, we should encourage editors and should not swear at them, but to discourage eff ective administrators from doing their job by immediately calling for their head after the first slip up is every bit as bad. If admins aren't willing to handle content disputes for fear of censure, then the disputes will continue to fester and cause even more problems than they do now. I'm not sure how much you've waded into disputes around here, but they are time consuming and awful and are one of the biggest blights. We do not want to create a chilling effect on administrators who are actually willing to step up to the plate on these issues.
  • As such, I implore, nay I beg that you rescind your recommendation, and instead simply ask for an apology. Your word still carries a lot of weight around here, and I would hate to see BWilkins lose his bit for a while because of it. I, for one, spend the majority of my time doing menial administrative work outside of AN3 (mostly, patrolling {{NowCommons}}), and I do not want to lose my bit and my ability to do this work because some day I'm in a poor mood and use poor wording when dealing bluntly with a user. If BWIlkins is desysopped, I will almost definitely stop patrolling the difficult cases on AN3 (out of concern for the good of the work I do elsewhere, not out of spite).
  • Sorry for the WP:TL;DR post, but I have a lot to say and I feel very strongly about this issue. I hope you have time to at least scan my post.
  • Regards. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • PS. Even if it is too late and he's already asked to have his bit removed, please still consider rescinding your recommendation and stating that he should have the bit readded. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • PPS. Full disclosure - I am involved in a nasty personal dispute where I overall handled the issue poorly with a user who is upset that I told him "grow a backbone" on ANI, which is similar to what BWilkins did above. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Related to Magog's "full disclosure" above, take a look at this thread at ANI. ANI can become a circus, and more incidents like these are sure to happen if the atmosphere continues as such. --Jprg1966 (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jprg1966, and perhaps this is a baby step toward policing AN/I, because as it is now, any troll or kingmixer is allowed to drag the discussion off-course while flaming the involved parties and generally acting in a disruptive manner. Penylup's actions at my recent AN/I report are a prime example. No one even tried to redirect them, while I was being ridiculed and berated they went about making things worse, and no admins stepped-up to keep the peace. They did tell me to shut-up though, because afterall, at AN/I, the report filer is even more guilty than the user the complaint is filed against. AN/I in general needs reform, if nothing else the general decorum and those who comment there should be held to a much higher standard. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the good faith comments of many of those commenting above, and I'm aware that BWilkins is a respected administrator - including, until relatively recently, by myself. But unfortunately this is anything but an isolated incident.

Only a month ago, in this edit to a fairly new contributor's editor review - a place to provide constructive feedback - BWilkins says "The editor is power/rights hungry, believes that creating poor stubs is an actual substitute for writing articles, fails to take any advice when it's provided; at times appears arrogant and egotistical; totally lacks a WP:CLUE". When politely challenged about this on his own talkpage, BWilkins justifies it by, amongst other things, saying "what he's now infamous for, which is being a royal pain in the ass", and claiming his original comments were intended to be helpful because "By pointing out just how fucking annoying he has been it gives him the chance to learn, so as not be so fucking annoying to the project in the future" (this with the delightful edit summary "ffs - read sometime, rather than pull comments from your ass"). When challenged by others, he goes back to his favourite, "Grow up people". I'm the mentor of the contributor he was attacking, and two of my comments in this discussion were removed by BWilkins, without replies, with edit summaries of "Go. Away." and "Seriously, f.o already."

I've not looked for other incidents involving BWilkins behaving in a similar way, these are just the ones I'm already aware of. Less than a month before that behaviour, was BWilkins' WP:INVOLVED block of another good faith contributor. The block was overturned, and the gory details are in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive754#Block Review, complete with BWilkins' description of others as "classless" and implying they had assumed bad faith. The one thing he could have taken away from that discussion was the good advice that The "block first, ask questions later" attitude only works with users who clearly aren't here to contribute positively. But this seemed to go in one ear and out the other.

More recent than either of the two examples I've just given, is BWilkins' block of User:Volunteer Marek after Marek had aimed some insults in the direction of BWilkins - thus giving every appearance of a WP:INVOLVED block even though, as of right now, BWilkins maintains he did no wrong with this block either (on a technicality, as far as I can see.)

BWilkins has done much good administrative work in between these incidents, and even some of the good parts have been unreasonably condemned by interested parties. But if someone is going to wield the block tool a lot, just getting most of their blocks right isn't enough. (Especially if the only occasion they apologise for getting it wrong, is when Jimbo intervenes!) Just from these three incidents I've mentioned, it seems that BWilkins really does now see adminship as a "big deal" - and increasingly he sees ordinary contributors as not being colleagues and equals on a project to build an encyclopedia, but sometimes as merely irritating obstacles to the implementation of his administrative tasks. One way or another, this attitude needs to change. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I would ask very kindly that you not attribute meaning where they clearly do not occur. "Conjecture" is not appropriate. I also take great offense to the statement that I use the block tool a lot - my blocking log would show quite differently, and clearly shows the opposite of your statements. I also take great offence to the suggestion that I do not apologize when I err - it's very obvious that I do. I'm going to stop attempting to defend myself against bad faith and cherry-picked comments - as I said long ago, I have submitted an e-mail to Mr. Wales directly, and I will take his recommendations in his reply to heart. I will make no further comments about such unbelievably false commentary (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
While I think the edit summary and criticism are problematic etc, the comments that were removed don't show you in the best light either. He has apologised and I think the best thing is to move forward rather than picking through his past contributions. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Why do the comments not show me "in the best light"? He's not apologised for any of those three incidents, as far as I'm aware - he only apologised for the one single incident where Jimbo said his behaviour was "ground for immediate desysopping". That's telling, I think. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
BWilkins, did Mr Wales elect you? You may be putting him in a rather awkward position. But then only he knows what you've said to him. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thread recap: Editor points out that administrator told him to grow the f up. Jimbo says this is "absolutely unacceptable under any circumstances" and should result in administrator forfeiting bit. Administrator says he's embarrassed but does not actually apologize. Jimbo says "we all make mistakes" and all is forgiven. Wikipedia leadership at its finest! Townlake (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are just a few of the many examples where BWilkins has acted inappropriately: this comment is sexist, wow, here they judge some editors to be trolls, something content editors are expected to immediately redact or face blocks, more hostility, here you admonish an editor without offering any rationale or policy examples, here, here BWilkins is seen flippantly threatening blocks like a gangsta, "anyone with a brain", here they accuse an editor of "bitching and whining", more inapporpriate belittling, threatening someone to intimidate them away from AN/I, rude and insulting, rude and belittling, defending obscenities used on wikipedia, ego tripping, comments unbecoming an admin, rude and belittling comments that futher support BWilkins does not read entire disputes before judging the parties, rude/hostile comments directed at a user and their country of origin, what was that about quoting offensive comments?, is this AGF?, poor choices?, more obscenities, "grow-up people", rude, hostile, look at this one, wow, really, from an admin?. I could go on and on, or BWilkins could take Mr. Wales' suggestion, as they insist others do, and desysop voluntarily. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I would add that BWilkins' frequent use of obscenities is bad ink for wikipedia. Minors edit this site, and indeed his use of this offensive language may eventually be directed at a child. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
It's obvious BWilkins has no business holding a sysop bit on this project. I commend you for your huevos Gabe, but you have to know this has virtually zero chance of succeeding. Admins are bulletproof. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
You have been edit warring today with another editor across a number of articles today, for example [3][4][5] which BWilkins stepped in and stopped by protecting the articles. This appears like good admin action to me. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
What's your point? Did I say he should be desysopped for anything he did to me? No. He should be desysopped because as has been clearly demonstrated by others here, he has no business holding a sysop bit on this project. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
You appear to be taking a unique view on a large number of these diffs. This is evident when one looks at the diffs. The first is not sexist, it looks like he's giving another editor advice with informal language. The second is noting that people who call others trolls, are frequently themselves trolls, it appears to be supporting an editor who is facing vandalism on his user talk page. This exclamation of surprise: [6] and calling it acting inappropriately is unusual, while I find the use of bad language unnecessary it's also unfair to single out a single editor over a statement of suprise. I wouldn't call this advice inappropriate [7]. This is in response to an editor where WP:IDHT is relevant, I can understand that frustration where an editor just doesn't get it (the editors disruptive editing and WP:IDHT mentality had led to a block) : [8]. If there are relevant diffs here you have thrown the chaff in with the wheat. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Of course you can cherry pick the less offensive examples from above and explain them away, but it should be obvious by now that there is indeed a pattern here. --Conti| 01:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Here are some others: this lacks any context (by itself it's perfectly normal): [9]. Bwilkins is pointing out how he is trying to help out the user, the wording is not what I would do but I would not think it uncivil: [10]. I don't see an issue with this diff [11]. I see nothing wrong with this dif [12] either, and do not see how it is "more inappropriate belittling", it was in response to an editor (since indefinitely blocked) who accused Dennis Brown of falsifying evidence, a very serious charge, where the motives of the poster are very relevant. IRWolfie- (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
You're right, most examples from GabeMc above are not as bad, but they do show a pattern. Nothing actionable, for the most part. But I find the examples from Demiurge1000 above more worrying, to be honest, and Bwilkins did not really respond to them, other than saying they are "false commentary". A user above mentioned how working as an admin in various content dispute can be rather stressful, and that therefore more emotional reactions should be expected/accepted. Honestly, I'd rather see an admin step back and let others do the work while he gets a cup of tea and a cooler head instead. We're all volunteers, and before you give in to the urge to curse at someone, you really should close the window and do something else for 30 minutes. --Conti| 02:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Pattern, zomg the guy is a genius at getting his way successfully, like never bother to use the article talkpage, when a flurry of user talkpages will do. [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] (all the same thing, just different users) I need to take my hat off, I'm obnoxious at times just to help the project, but I need to take lessons on how to do it for personal gain instead. Penyulap 02:14, 21 Jul 2012 (UTC)

User:Penyulap has now been wikihouding/wikistalking me for over a week due to the AN/I report I filed to protect the project, you are all witnesses to this harassment. Has BWilkins ever asked them to stop? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
While you may be right about wikihounding etc, It's not fair to expect BWilkins or any particular admin to have personally commented on this issue. IRWolfie- (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, I just meant that BWilkins went out of their way to call me childish, pathetic and drop the f-bomb on me, but they never once asked Penyulap to tone it down, and please do take a lgood ook at that AN/I report before you make a judgement. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure he will let fly in my direction if he sees fit, I have seen him do some strange things but as I have not understood his motivations I don't dare pass judgement. The jury is still out on that one, so I'm always happy to have him tell me to STFU, as further data is welcome. Penyulap 02:45, 21 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Also, while I have only ever accused one wiki editor of being a troll, these behaviours of Penyulap's seem all the more ridiculous when you consider that they supported "the" in the poll they are now trying to disrupt. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the dilemma is working out which of the two of us is more obnoxious, I strongly suggest it's me, but hey, I recognise talent when I see it. I suggest banning both of us for a solution everyone can agree on. Oh yeah ! Penyulap 02:25, 21 Jul 2012 (UTC)
'Tits on a bull' I like that, but what about 'Consistently insulting somone's judgement instead of accepting responsibility for one's own actions' in the same diff, is that an outrage too, or just the metaphor. Zomg, is someone winding me up into defending the prickliest admin around ? and it's working too, hey GabeMc, just what is your intention here ? Unite the masses ? bring idiots like me and admins closer together ? what are you doing ?
(edit conflict)Well, those last two that you have diff'd really do talk to me, I like someone who reads the whole f'n page before passing judgement, it's better than most actually. I prefer further degrees of study in the sub-pages, diffs and user-profiling, but I'm too fussy there it seems. And that last diff, well there is an editor who I'd like to work with, unless the smilie means he's teasing, because admitting when you are wrong is the only possibly way not to be a fecalphiliac anal retentive type who carries all their mistakes with them everywhere they go. I like to admit when I am wrong at light speed and get back to my main job of being (it seems) an insufferable know-it-all who is always right1
1(based upon an average of time spent not admitting my mistakes compared to the rest of the time) Penyulap 03:41, 21 Jul 2012 (UTC)

By the way, this thread is getting off track. Jimbo did ask for Civility and while it might be entertaining to some for you to get all the digs in you can at one another here, this isn't a proper or thoughtful forum for it. If you have a particularly grievous issue for Jimbo, by all means this page is probably useful, but at this point I'd say this thread is beginning to lose its meaning and purpose and if you want to have a lasting impact on editor civility or have a specific legitimate complaint, please take it to a better forum. -- Avanu (talk) 03:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, enough is enough, but I do think I at least deserve a personal apology from Bwilkins' for their terrible mishandling of this entire incident. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I can't imagine Jimbo really wants to say just how insufferable I am, but anyone is welcome to do so on my talkpage. Avanu is quite right about off-track. Penyulap 03:41, 21 Jul 2012 (UTC)

BWilkins should start to amend his approach immediately. It seems pretty ridiculous to imagine any admin would tell a troll to grow the fuck up, but to see that directed at a regular editor is outrageous and even more ridiculous. I have noticed a high level of, let's say, intensity in the manner in which BWilkins discusses issues with editors. And this isn't new. A word of caution to BWilkins would be to understand that if anyone did file an arbcom case on him regarding his commentary and actions, arbcom will see the diffs of "badness", and all it takes is a dozen or so to eliminate the perhaps 10 thousand good diffs. Sadly, that is how the game works, so it would be a wise idea if BWilkins took some time to reflect on the manner in which he carries on with those he feels he must "advise"...if he is no longer capable of using adequate restraint (knowing he may very well be dealing with an editor that might be fuming themselves), then he should hand some self appointed responsibilities to others that aren't possibly burnt out.--MONGO 04:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I said I was done but I can't not add this one from today: "When I was a kid, we'd call you a 'wussie' LMAO. Thanks, I needed the laugh today". Is this really the attitude we want our AN admins to take? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is. It exactly is. He was being cordial and playful in the comment, read the context and you will see two editors who are simply trying to relax and blow off steam and anxiety. -- Avanu (talk) 05:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, when I was growing up, kids who were effeminate or gay were called wussies by bullies. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
And when I was growing up that was the case too, but it would be absolutely as common for someone to be called a "wuss" for just being afraid to do something bold or strong. Let's not go overboard on political correctness. BWilkins' comment immediately above is simply a hearty chuckle at no one's expense. -- Avanu (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Overboard? Really? How does Bwilkins know the age, personality type, or the sexual orientation of those he attacks and why is he the judge of me or anybody else? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll leave you to this. Not going to debate a side issue when there are stronger civility concerns that are also worth our time. -- Avanu (talk) 06:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
In these days of gender inclusivity I think we should all welcome tits on a bull and I warmly endorse Mrs Wilkins' bold step there. 109.153.196.150 (talk) 10:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • New civility policy time? If you have looked at the thread on ANI linked by Jprg1966 (talk) above, as it stands wikipedia doesnt have an effective/working civility policy. Long term incivil editors are free to act as they please (YRC was blocked for another issue) as they know admins have no wish to enforce civility. Given the admin corps themselves number people who think its appropriate to use incivil language, its not surprising people are rarely blocked for it. For the most part minor incivilities are handled quickly, but there is no functional way of dealing with long term problems. RFC's have very little impact when the editor refuses to accept they are in the wrong. The common excuse 'Well its acceptable where I am from' comes up time and again, the point is that it should NOT be acceptable here. And as yet there is no one enforcing this. Given the difficulties in getting people to pass RFA (In no small part to the same incivil editors haranguing the potential admins!) its going to take a top-down enforced solution at this point. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • This has gotten off-track and a bit pitchforkish, but I understand the sentiment. Honestly, I think that working in WP:DR, WP:EW or WP:ANI too long isn't good for an admin, as you see the same things day in and day out and it can make you a bit callous or overly blunt because of the frustration of dealing with people who are heated and disruptive and it isn't easy to remain calm. This is why I say I'm not interested in seeing the bit removed. I agree that some of his comments are a bit gruff (and have said as much to him before), but some of these are also out of context. Bwilkins IS an asset, of this I have no doubt. Bwilkins can be a bit more blunt than needed sometimes. Again, no doubt. The question should simply be: What is the best solution here?, and while I empathize with those who suggest harsher methods, I disagree and say that we engage, ask him to work in different areas where the heat is less, and offer a little guidance along the way, break the Code of Silence and all learn a bit. THIS is how we benefit Editor Retention. Not by running off admins, but by doing everything we can to get them to view their roles differently, and perhaps work in other areas so frustration doesn't become habit. At the very least, we owe it to ourselves, and to Bwilkins, to extend enough good faith to attempt to resolve the concerns using the least extreme method, just as I would try with any editor. There are a number of admins who I would consider "too gruff" but otherwise a net benefit, and I'm not interested in losing all of them, only in changing some of their methods. We don't have a system in place for this, but maybe we need one. Dennis Brown - © 14:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Following up on what Dennis said, I suggested a block for an admin that had done something wrong and it seemed to be taken less than seriously with several commenters saying 'we can't block an admin because they can override a block'. I then suggested a ban, which seems to be in effect what any block would be like for an admin. This was similarly not well recieved with several commenters saying I take it to an Admin Recall discussion. The idea that the *only* option for the bad act of an admin is simply kicking them back down to editor seems like overkill. At Wikiquette we had a prolific contributor telling a filer "I suggest the contributor should either grow up, or fuck off and troll elsewhere", but it is passed on because this user has a habit of being rough in his language. I've said ignoring a rough comment is certainly a sign of civility itself. Its a two way street, because sometimes people act out of character and say things out of anger, but when thing take on a character of roughness that is unwarranted or unprofessional, there has to be something we can do, and that includes teaching the admin corps that civility is supposed to be a pillar, not an 'essay'. -- Avanu (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikiquette isn't the place to expect any action to be taken for any use of abusive or bad language beyond further discussion, it's not admin patrolled. Do expect someone to ask them not use it though. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that the OP underwent a very unsuccessful RfA recently. One of the issues that came up repeatedly in the opposes was his "badgering" of opposes and his canvassing. This ties in very well with this discussion, since this another instance where the editor is forum shopping to get his own way.

GabeMc has unilaterally decided that the 'T' in "The Beatles" should not be capitalised. He has spent the last several weeks campaigning, badgering, and harassing in his quest to have his own way. If someone opposes his opinion, he files a specious AN/I report on them. A quick look at his contribs will reveal his antics, such as posting the same message, usually about how he's being harassed by someone, on multiple users' talk pages.

So far he has slid by with only an interaction ban to show for all of his disruption. He sees the cracks in the system and is exploiting them. Someone needs to take an honest look at what this editor is doing and respond appropriately. Radiopathy •talk• 17:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Points for originality! So asking Jimbo to investigate admin misconduct is "exploiting cracks in the system"? You stated "it should be noted" that Gabe underwent a failed RfA. Why should that be noted here? What does Gabe's failed RfA have to do with BWilkins telling him to "grow the fuck up"? Also, your allegations of "canvassing" are BS. Gabe knows I favor the capital "T", and yet he has notified me of many Beatles-related discussions. Inviting input from a user who disagrees with him is the exact opposite of canvassing. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, posting on this page is never forum shopping, regardless of what good or bad things the OP may or may not have got up to elsewhere. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The key takeaway is that being dicks to people IS ACTUALLY, MEASURABLY, A PROBLEM, and we need to stop it - David Gerard (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus to penalize incivility in user interactions. Consensus > Common sense. Welcome to Wikipedia. Townlake (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
A six-month time out would be a sensible step forward, but I am a bit concerned that a good half of your quoted complaints are not quite what they seem to be. Are you really sure that BWilkins acted wrongly on all of the occasions you mention? I don't like dishonesty, but I don't like unfair persecution either. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I hear you, good points, all I can say is that I honestly think each one is an example of behaviour unbecoming an admin, what others think is up to them, but that doesn't make this less honest if some of the examples seem weak to others. I could find the really good ones if you want. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
For example, some have expressed that Bwilkins use of "wussies" is not offensive, but I think it is. I also think the obscene language and references to his genitals are crude, vulgar and they do not have a place in civilised discourse. I expect a higher standard of conduct from our admins. Read the above example about being militaristic with a drill Sgt.'s voice in your head, you will see what I mean. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
How about we move on. I do want to hear what else BWilkins has been up to, and you're welcome to email me privately about that. I do know that BWilkins has emailed Jimbo privately, and I can assume that BWilkins has represented his apologies in a way that was appropriate. What I would like to see, is administrators showing respect for ordinary contributors. Ordinary editors. Maybe Jimbo and BWilkins should publish their joint thoughts on that. There's nothing special about being an admin, right? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
That's exactly my point, its like Serpico around here lately, if there is nothing special about being an admin, then perhaps they should stop acting like tyrants and bullies. Also, BWilkins hasn't apologized to me in the least, so that he apologized to Jimbo for acting inappropriately in regard to me is not enough. IMO, he should personally apologize to me for mishandling my AN/I report and treating me with hostility and disrespect. That's what I would expect from a wikipedia admin who was so clearly wrong in both his judgement and his actions. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Is this really vandalism? Looks like the re-blanking of evidence that Bwilkins made a poor judgement call. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
    • This is no vandalism to remove message from the user's own talk page unless that is a formal blocking/banning message issued by other sysops. And I sincerely ask you to stop reporting users you've conflict with. The issue certainly isn't a dead horse, but your reports has gone out of control which include every single minor mischievous behavior as possible to justify your accusation, which to many of us here are not the very reason Bwilkins should be desysoped. What should be told has already been told *here*. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
No I mean, Bwilkins called it vandalism in his edit summary, it isn't, Bwilkins is attempting to hide the diff. Here, Dennis Brown agrees that this is inappropriate. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
However he addressed it in the edit summary doesn't matter, he has the right to revert it. And it's no news to me that admin got tired or upset of tenacious and repetitive complains for blocking/protecting. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Civility is not found in little words, actions speak louder than words and it's the intention that counts. Make friends and show clearly that you mean no harm, make it clear you are there to help and actually be there to help and mean it. If it is clearly understood that you are genuine then the little words are no problem. Ruling out little words is simply turning the job of civility enforcement over to cluebot, and that still won't work because even he has a whitelist of exceptions to the rule, and he's just a bot. Even he knows that when some people are putting YOU FAGGOT into the article that's OK. Looking at words and making some list is not going to fix the problem. Cripple everyone's vocabulary so that idiots have to reach for the thesaurus and educate themselves, well, I guess the question becomes is it worth the effort to educate those who would otherwise resist educating.

You find the solution at the smallest level by policing intentions, this can only be done by peers who have read and understood, not passers-by with drive-by judgements. On the larger level, removing the ability for people to argue with each other is beyond the scope and ability of wikipedia to change, it's simply a matter of building a better project from the ground up. Richards graphs show that wikipedia's new motto will become "Wikipedia, discussion ad nauseam". Penyulap 03:49, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)

  • Wow, here and here are real doozys, BWilkins seems to imply that he lusts after teenagers. I'm not kidding, take a look, from two months ago. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you enjoy remembering your teenage years and interactions with the opposite sex GabeMc ? 3 options. Say yes, and you like thinking about it. Say no, and you wish you could have done it. Say nothing and you won't look like a fool. Penyulap 03:56, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Those diffs are completely innocent. You've made your statement GabeMC, time to move on. Townlake (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
"Have you seen the teenagers these days?" (original emphasis) is stated in the present tense, and not at all innocent in my opinion, its very creepy and inappropriate, and neither an admin, nor aybody on wikipedia should be saying such things IMO. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
It's no secret I have nothing but contempt for BWilkins, but no one deserves that. Taking diffs out of context to accuse someone of "lusting after teenagers" is not OK. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Joe, is there any other way to present a diff? They are by nature a bit out of context. One can read the entire context if they desire, it won't change the meaning, he is talking about how attractive teenagers are these days, why am I wrong to object to this filth on an intellectual website? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I went to the market the other day, I saw a lot of people looking at a new vacuum cleaner, admiring it, however I didn't think that meant that they wanted to do something that would take them to the emergency room, I didn't think that because I have no problem or obsession with appliances which leads me to believe that anyone looking at vacuum cleaners has the exact same obsession as I do. Penyulap 04:06, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)
That kind of talk would be sexual harasment in an office. It has no place here whatsoever in any context. That I even have to argue this is both disappointing and unsurprising. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
There was a scene at the same market that was so hideous I didn't want to mention, but let me tell you, and I'm not making it up, I saw people at the Pet shop. They were looking at pets, old people, young people, oh it was disgusting. The worst of all was the mere children, and they were, I can hardly say it, looking at hamsters, and I almost had to cover my ears to block out their shameful requests that their parents buy the poor critters for them. I couldn't get myself out of there fast enough honestly, although at least their parents seemed to be showing a mediocrum of commonsense by refusing to indulge these disgusting little creatures. Penyulap 04:22, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)
  • Again, Bwilkins being unsympathetic and hostile about a user who is most likely on the A-Spectrum. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Again! You've presented an evidence completely contrary to your statement. BWilkins actually refrained from indef-block the said user. Enough is enough. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 05:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Gabe, I implore you to stop. If someone had said to me this morning, "By the end of the day you will be on Jimbo's page defending BWilkins", I would have staked the deed to my house that he was wrong. But this is getting bizarre. That diff shows him trying to help a troubled user. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Another sexist reference to his genitals. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
    • When several disparate editors tell someone to stop, it is a very good idea to stop. Even assuming that you are correct and everyone else is wrong, Wikipedia requires collaboration and all you are doing is digging a hole that will lead to sanctions because repetitive persistence is one of the most disruptive behaviors (vandalism is easily handled). I looked at a couple of the diffs given and echo the comments above that there is nothing wrong with the comments—any problem is entirely in the beholder's mind. Johnuniq (talk) 07:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
If anyone told me this morning that I'd be agreeing with something Johnuniq said.... naa, wait, I'm happy to agree with anyone who is right, and in this particular case, Johnuniq is..........possibly not completely wrong. But I'm undecided to be sure. Penyulap 09:23, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Good morning all. Just to let you know I spent the day with my family in the sunshine yesterday, and I thank those of you who e-mailed me during the day to advise me that this was still being discussed (as someone said "via the shotgun approach"). Yes, I did check in once or twice. What you have seen above is a perfect example of the types of actions that led to the frustration that then led to my inappropriate outburst. (There are certainly some disappointing attempts to twist my words, but in the long run square pegs do not go into round holes - even with a hammer). However, as I have said a million times on this project: "someone else's action may explain your behaviour, but does not excuse it". At no point have I tried to excuse my phrasing, and I indeed apologized for it; period.
I'm sorry that Gabe feels I mishandled my only other statements in ANI, however, my investigation of the entire incident showed that the WP:DR processes that we typically use to try and diffuse conflict were not well-followed, and it is every single editor's responsibility to diffuse conflict, not escalate it. My input there was an attempt to point out that neither side had acted in the best interests of de-escalation. Similarly, when one's original complaint has been dealt with to your satisfaction, that's a good time to disengage and go back to what this project is about: article-building.
I will remind everyone that the suggestion by Jimbo was a voluntary de-sysopping. I stated quite clearly on Friday that I had submitted an e-mail to him while at the same time stating a personal and heartfelt apology to him and the community (and all members in it) - the e-mail contained some specifics/attempted clarifications around such a process if I indeed voluntarily chose to do so. That should have been the end of this discussion (however, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition :-) ).
I will, however, take a few of the statements above as my own personal WP:RFC/U. Some of you have made logical, wise, intelligent comments that I will take to heart as I move forward. I always have accepted well-stated/well-founded critique of my actions and edits. Will I continued to be blunt when it's needed? At times, yes - every situation is different. In is not, nor has it ever been my intent to go against the trust the community placed in me. I have at no times abused "power" - and have always acted in the best interests of the community as a whole. I will continue to do so; period. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:35, 22 July 2012 (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.


Censorship and 2012 Summer Olympics

Sources

The London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games has placed restrictions on the use of certain words associated with the 2012 Summer Olympics.

Wavelength (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  • No one is going to haul you before a judge for saying "2012 medal". But if you put it on a T shirt, and hawk it a few blocks from the Olympic Stadium, and then are before a judge, well, sorry. No one at Magna Carta protected the right to pirate merch.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • If there were an encyclopaedia around here somewhere, I could point you to what Title 36 of the United States Code, more particularly the Amateur Sports Act of 1978 and the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, gave to the United States Olympic Committee. Two of those articles have just had large amounts of partisan prose added to them by LEOLABRANCHE (talk · contribs) who is apparently the plaintiff in Labranche (Leo, Jr.) v. U.S. Olympic Committtee, 838 F.2d 1217 (1988). and the author of a self-published book …. Uncle G (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
    • No, I read it. I come down, in general, on the side of the Olympic folks. There is ample opportunity to make money off the Olympics without using their symbols and words which evoke them. The charity may have a Games party, if they like, with round cakes in gold, silver, and bronze, with the IOC's blessing. But they may not call it a 2012 Games Party. And I may agree, such marketing as they talk about in the article is often clever. But it's still using the Games for publicity which makes money for a non-sponsor.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Who are the games for, again? The very idea of "using the games" is ridiculous. If they were a private affair then I'd be all for your position, but given how much nuisance they cause to the public (they were part of the reason I moved from London a few months ago) is justified by essentially implying they are public property, and the so-called olympic ethos and other garbage is all suggestive that it's all about the sport, often amateurs only... tis impossible for the people to "use the games" incorrectly. Egg Centric 19:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
        • The Games are a private affair. The fact that there is necessarily a large public sector component does not alter that fact, nor does it give the IOC's intellectual property into the public domain. Incidentally, there is no requirement that participants be amateurs, unless so required by that sport's International Sports Federation. "Amateur" was dropped from the rules in the mid-1970s.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • For official information: London 2012's UK statutory marketing rights - Brand protection (pdf from here).
    MistyMorn (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Not sure what this has to do with Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't a business and only uses the words and images associated with the Olympics to provide information, not for advertising. (And Wikipedia isn't based in the UK, so UK restrictions shouldn't apply anyway.) Robofish (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
    • That would be my impression too, but I know zip about legal stuff - anyway the official guidelines are there. —MistyMorn (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Hey! I managed to wedge a reference to that encyclopaedia thing that's around here into the discussion. Here's another: Clearly the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 article is missing a fair amount of encyclopaedic detail, given the sources (e.g. Lazzari 2012 and Peckham 2012) that seem to be available on this. Do any of you here know any encyclopaedia writers? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • There has already been significant climbdown from Lord Coe's remarks yesterday. I spoke to him (socially) last night and would say that some of the literal quotes from him appear to fail to have comprehended his wry sense of humor. "Any individual coming into our venues can wear any item of clothing, branded or otherwise" is the official position, not that the tabloids have taken any notice. In any event, I think none of this has anything much to do with Wikipedia at all, and I encourage editors to not self-censor. NPOV use of language, as always, rules the day around here. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Olympic censorship is not new or confined to the UK; see e.g. [20]. The most remarkable case I know of involved a process against the makers of Legend of the Five Rings (collectible card game), who were forced to redesign the backs of their collectible trading cards because any pentagram of interlocking rings is, by special provision of copyright law, deemed to be the property of the Olympics. (A notion of greater antiquity than it would appear, as the Games at Tyre were under the tutelage of the original "Beelzebub") Wnt (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Actually, it does have to do with Wikipedia. It's stuff that people might want to know about right now that we're missing from our articles. Both Nairobi Treaty and Nairobi Treaty on the Protection of the Olympic Symbol are currently redlinks, and London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 doesn't give any details of what the Act and the statutory instruments that it enables actually prohibit. I didn't mention Peckham 2012 idly above. It's a source written by an intellectual property lawyer that connects the dots between the treaty and the U.K. and U.S. legislation, and analyses the potential consequences. We shouldn't be worrying about not using words on Wikipedia. But we most definitely should be thinking of readers coming to Wikipedia and not being informed by our articles to the extent that they can put the media coverage into context. As I said: Do any of you know any encyclopaedia writers? Uncle G (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Request from Romney for President, Inc.

Proposal

Why not offer both presidential campaigns a priority service allowing them to notify the WMF about some problem which will then be immediately looked into and fixed if there is judged to be a problem? Since both campaigns are drowning in money, we could ask a big fee for that. Count Iblis (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I recall that either 2, 4, or 6 years ago, someone from the WMF contacted the RNC and DNC and asked that they send any problems that they have with articles to OTRS. From what I understand, both parties were rather happy with the results and they plan to continue that this cycle. NW (Talk) 22:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, somewhere there is advice to politicians and public figures from all districts which suggests emailing OTRS, but if I can't find it I doubt campaign publicists can. It should probably be added to WP:COI and/or WP:PAID. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Isn't it conventional to tell people "if there's a serious problem with an article, email info@wikimedia.org and we promise someone will at least look at it"? I certainly tell people that - David Gerard (talk) 10:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
And here's the cool thing: it actually works. For all the nonsense posted here and there by people who are soft on PR firms / paid advocates that bad things would happen if they aren't allowed to edit Wikipedia directly, there are essentially zero cases of legitimate problems that can't be resolved quite easily by doing the right thing in the first place.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I will note I made a point of telling the PR people that precise address! (There are non-dickish PR people, and smart and knowledgeable contributors are always good to have. It's just the noisiest ones ...) I also really like the fact I can promise people "a volunteer who knows their stuff will look at your problem and take it seriously" and have it be true. (Even if they look at it and answer with a canned response if that's what it warrants. The point is we have our best people in the loop.) - David Gerard (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

complaint

Hello, I was blocked by the participant Uchastnik:andrey Romanenko. He is the manager of the Russian version of WIKIPEDIA. I wrote to it for fun that it badly works. It blocked me, having bad sense of humour. Unless powers are given to managers, for satisfaction of personal ambitions, and unless managers can do in WIKIPEDIA that want? Unless they are owners of WIKIPEDIA? Untouchables?

I didn't make any destructive actions. Obscenely it was not expressed. Didn't want anybody to offend.

I ask to unblock my account, and the above-named participant to deprive of the rights of the manager.

With ogrony respect in WIKIPEDIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glavnaya78 (talkcontribs) 14:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Glavnaya78 (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

local labels instead of global filters

A short proposal on meta, related to the discussion you've started on filtering, is posted here, in the ongoing brainstorming discussion about treating controversial content. Comments appreciated. Pundit|utter 23:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Argentine statistics

If you don't replace all the argentine statistics that are not using the indek stats, you will be aiding golpista Jorge Lanata to overthrow the holy president Cristina Kirchner. Thanks for your time. Lgauiy scratches cordes (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what this is about, and I expect Jimbo doesn't either, but if you want anything to happen, the best thing is to place a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Argentina. Looie496 (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Indek - or rather Indec - is, I expect, the Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos, the national statistical office of Argentina, who it seems are not currently considered a reliable source.[21] Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Block [deleted] and his puppets. The rules are either for everyone or for no one !!!

Ethics of medical publication in educational works from Wikimedia

For what it's worth, I've added a new angle to the whole debate over images on Commons that I haven't seen anyone even consider so far, even though professionals who write textbooks and suchlike have been concerned about it for decades. I strongly recommend reading the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals (not the Wikipedia article, the actual requirements) and at least some of the many other similar guidelines and discussions that you'll find that professionals in many countries have to adhere to; as well as the discussions of such ethics in medical literature, such as the 1991 JAMA article that I pointed to as an example in the deletion discussion. I also highly recommend that we encourage a culture of not abusing Wikimedia policies to force people to have their intimate medical details published all over the World Wide Web against their wills and without written informed consent. Uncle G (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you absolutely. I'll additionally note how few people commented in that deletion discussion and that it is precisely that sort of lack of involvement that leads to such poor decisions.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I just ask me why people upload material they don't really want to publish or don't ask those they photographed for permission. This is what I consider to be self-evident. Frankly, I believe the root-problem lies with the lack education. It should be clear to people uploading that the web will never forget. The problem is not limited to medical publications. Perhaps a voice or text should warn before uploading such material when certain keywords are detected in the file name or description. This is not a hoax-suggestion and would be technically possible.

    On the other hand, I don't think it's a big loss if the file would be deleted and if this happens occasionally only (per uploader) it could be tolerated. But I will refrain from giving my opinion in such deletion requests. They often cause too much unnecessary trouble. Regards -- Rillke (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

    • I can't think of a single reason why we should feel negatively towards anyone who uploads something intensely personal and regrets it later. I see no positive purpose to forcing the issue. This is not a complex issue requiring a lot of hand wringing. The ethics are quite simple. Human dignity matters.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I keep signed consents on all identifiable cases I upload. Of all the people I have asked only one did not feel comfortable having her image uploaded under a CC BY SA license. Most people are excited to know that they can potentially help others.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 02:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Thanks. That's great. Here are 3 reasons why it this way is the better one: Those who upload “something intensely personal” showing other people without their consensus act irresponsible, I believe and as previously said “the web will never forget”. One further point is that the files are categorized, descriptions are (ideally) translated and they are used in Wikipedia Articles by community members so other people’s work also goes into trash when files are deleted on Commons. Finally each of those deletions requires time: At least 1 minute for the formalities (if you work conscientious and know that you have to check) and the server not talking about the controversial deletion debate. All in all, it would be more effective to stop the upload instead of uploading, waiting for “all the web”-mirrors making a copy and then delete. Regards -- Rillke (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
          • I would agree with Jimbo here, but I'd also say that Wikipedia culture is seriously messed up. Wikipedia rules end up privileged over real-world considerations; if the rules say we are here to provide information, there are people who will take that to heart and reject any attempt whatsoever to exclude information (even if technically that's in a rule as well). Especially if the decision to exclude the information involves any discretion; since exercising discretion is not a hard-and-fast rule, such people will almost never do so. (Maybe I should write an essay Five Pillars Considered Harmful.) Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd also point out that a similar issue came up in Talk:Rorschach_test/disclosure. Anyone who tried to bring up ethical principles got told that since Wikipedia didn't agree to the ethics code, we have no obligation to follow it, and besides, the ethics code is just for making money anyway. And besides, the images are public domain, so there's no reason to listen to anyone who tells us not to use them. (Of course, penis pictures aren't public domain, but a similar argument is made when you substitute "public domain"-->"free to use"). Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Something to bear in mind when patients are signing consents for images taken by healthcare practitioners is that the consents are generally quite broad and do not explicitly explain that it is possible that the image will be used on something like a Wikipedia article. Most patients assume that, if the image is to be published at all, it will be in a medical journal whose circulation is generally quite small. Quite often the consent form will request permission for use for "educational purposes" and won't even specify the license. This is becoming an increasingly important issue as more medical journals are moving to CC-by-SA licensing and those of our colleagues seeking quality free-use images take advantage of this: we keep hearing from patients who are genuinely shocked to see their images on our projects, who never envisioned the photos their physician took would wind up in Wikipedia. This speaks to the need to verify model consent somehow prior to uploading/publishing the images. Risker (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I think this is an extremely important issue, and one we should revisit. It might even be worth putting together an official Wikimedia policy on the subject. Risker's point is a good one; patients often imagine that the "educational uses" of their photos involve presentation to health-care professionals bound by ethical codes of respect for privacy. I'm not sure how many patients realize that "educational uses" might include prominent display on a freely-available top-ten website at the top of every Google search.

      I raised this concern with regard to an image of an aborted fetus, used for a long time to illustrate our high-profile article on abortion (see this discussion thread, perhaps searching for the post beginning: am I the only one here who is uncomfortable with displaying an image of an aborted fetus with zero indication that the patient consented to its prominent display on a high-traffic page of a top-10 website?

      There was additional discussion of the consent issue in a Commons deletion discussion on the image. It's worth reading, because even editors who are medical professionals were split on the subject. (Of course, there were some of the usual jaw-droppers I've come to expect whenever Wikipedians discuss an issue requiring sensitivity to real-life concerns, e.g. "Patient not in picture, therefore consent not an issue"; "It is also more respectful of a parent's anonymity to not insist on a written, recorded release form in a situation like this"; "no actual privacy has been invaded here" (really? displaying an image of a woman's aborted fetus without her consent or knowledge doesn't violate her privacy?); and so forth).

      It's also worth noting that some editors have started drafting guidelines on the subject at commons:Project:Patient images, although this is currently tagged as an essay and carries no formal weight. MastCell Talk 20:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

      • Um, the essay appears not to exist at all... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I've cited another article in the professional literature on this subject at commons:User talk:Rd232#Ethics of medical publication in educational works from Wikimedia. For one example that addresses one of Risker's points on what patients are consenting to, and in furtherance of my point that similar professional ethical standards exist around the world, see the levels of consent explanation at Medical Photography & Illustration Frequently Asked Questions published by one NHS trust in the United Kingdom. There's a model policy for these, but it's not available to non-members of the IoMI. I agree with MastCell and, apparently, Rd232 (who got bogged down in the side-issue of speedy deletion). Commons policy is clearly deficient in this area, and a WMF-wide policy would be better yet. That commons:Project:Patient images#Consent not needed where patient cannot be identified says what it does indicates that we, who are attempting to do the same as the professionals who write the non-free-content textbooks, encyclopaedias, dictionaries, and so forth, have yet to catch up with where the professionals were back in the 1990s and have yet to raise our ethical standards to the same levels as those of the professionals. Uncle G (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Why cant we do action instead of talking on...

This pervasive problem that is constantly talked about- Admins cant be desysoped for egregious actions such as incivility. Admins should be held to higher standards instead of given more leeway than a regular editor. Thread after thread is created about what could or should be done but nothing is ever done, mostly because admins themselves as a group block it. Why can't you Jimbo, or ArbCom, or the Foundation (or us the Community coming to a consensus ignoring all admin attempts to block discussion or cause non-consensus) create a committee or noticeboard that is non-admin only that is the equivalent of AN/I and regular editors discuss admin actions and lack of courtesy and come to consensus on actions to be taken against admins who break "rules" or are inconsiderate against editors.Camelbinky (talk) 02:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

And how can admins "as a group" block anything that the community wants pray tell?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree, lets take some power back and away from admins. Sign me up, and please keep me informed of any future actions in this regard, you will have my full support. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
You guys have exactly the admin corps you deserve.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Maunus, that kinda assumes that people don't change. Mugabe was a great guy in 1980, and he keeps claiming the people love him. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I actually meant that as the future tense - "you will have the admin corps you deserve". My point is that when you are an admin every controversial action you take, a block, a protection, a revert, or even just a content dispute as a normal editor there is an automatic choir of people hysterically chanting "desysop!". The only ways of coping with that is growing thick skin and just ignoring it, ganging up with other admins to quash those who chant, or to lay down the tools. People treat adminship as a big deal, and then they are surprised that some admins act like its a big deal. So yes, you will have the admin corps you deserve at any given time.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that's probably true; since most people here behave like loons lately, they shouldn't expect more from admins. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
There is a considerable fallacy there, as there have been plenty of non-admins who got dozens of free passes on incivility issues because they had a clique of supporters. But to answer your general question, Jimbo and ArbCom don't have the purview to make such a change by fiat. Also, given your "us vs. them and there are more of us" attitude displayed above, I would suggest that it is not admins who are "blocking" the change you want, but rather, a lack of will from the community to do so. Perhaps the community at large simply doesn't share your view that there is a significant problem. As to the admin complaint noticeboard you propose, I'm sure you see the irony of proposing a dramaboard (which is what ANI is) that disenfranchises admins but would require an admin to actually carry out decisions. But good news! I have the admin bit, so you can safely ignore everything I say! Resolute 02:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. Its not the admin bit that gives impunity its the number of friends. It just so hapened that you made a system in which it is impossible to become and admin unless you can muster between 100 and 150 very good friends. So, now have it your way.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I think its a simple matter of allowing the community to effectively desysop when needed. Its nearly impossible as it now stands, that should be changed IMO. Make it easier to become an admin, and easier to lose the bit if you misuse it. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
It is a lot easier to desysop someone than it is to get the bit in the first place. It is only a question about number of friends - and admin with no friends is desysopped in no time.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
So what of a sysop with several influential friends? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
All sysops have several influential friends or they couldn't pass RfA in the first place. But since any solution will be based on consensus you can never desysop someone who has influential friends, just like you can't block them for civilty, or sanction them for any other wrongdoing except for through arbcom. But that is the same for non-admins with influential friends. The problem is inherent in wikipedia's community structure not in the admin part which basically has nothing to do with it. You see? The problem is that the rFa system makes it impossible for someone who does not already have a group of clients to become a sysop.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm kind of thinking there is a problem right here. People need to learn how not to upset just about everyone at the same time on the same day before they learn how to get a sysop bit. I mean, would you want ME to have a sysop bit right now ? Do you see where I'm going with this ? fill in the blank. Penyulap 06:30, 23 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, I got that right away. These discussions always build flowery rationales to cover over the root, which is "I want to get rid of the people I don't like, but you aren't making it easy for me." Resolute 03:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't like the calls for admins being desysopped for making the same mistakes as everyone else. In my opinion, the only reason you desysop an editor is for persistent patterns of incivility, broad breaches of policy, or abusive use of tools. Simple mistakes should warrant the same penalties and be treated exactly the same as anyone else. As far as the idea that an admin can't truly be blocked (because they can override it), if a situation arises where a block is needed and the admin cannot comport himself to comply with the same restriction as a normal editor would during a block, you desysop that admin and make them a regular editor again. But generally, I don't see where the disconnect is that others seem to be mentioning above. I would ask our admins to weigh in on this. Admins, do you feel admins are not fairly penalized for their actions? Also, do you feel that admins should be judged the same or more harshly because of the greater role they play? (By more harshly, I simply mean that there is less tolerance for error, not desysopping) Admins, your thoughts on this? -- Avanu (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately the way "consensus" works in the regards to fundamental structural change such as this results in admins claiming "non-consensus" or working en masse to derail all attempts. I strongly urge the Community to simply ignore all admin input on this and implement their own noticeboard to take care of admins who are not working for the Community. They work for US, it's time they are held accountable by US. They have set themselves up as a police, a court, a jury, and the executioner, and increasingly they are setting themselves up as the final say to create "laws". The Community-at-large made up of us editors are the ones that make decisions, admins carry out the consensus WE decide, they should never be substituting their decisions (as a group or not) for those made by the Community. And most importantly- NEVER should an admin be allowed to have one case of incivility towards an editor under any circumstance. Higher power results in higher standards. If they wish to put themselves up as a group with power, we must hold them to the highest standards.Camelbinky (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
For the record I do not want to remove anyone, but admins do often use their powers to silence those they have disputes with, especially after the fact when they see the person in a dispute with someone else and can claim "this dispute has nothing to do with me, but I know from personal experience XY has incivility issues"; and they get away with blocking and bullying.Camelbinky (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect Avanu, and admins everywhere- I dont think it appropriate to listen or frankly care a bit, what admins think should be done regarding "policing" themselves. When a city creates a citizen review board to police the police we do not (in those that actually work) give the police a choice or a hand in board itself. Those boards that fail are the result of giving the police a say on the board or undue influence or give into police demands that the board have limits. The same thing needs to occur here. The Community needs to set this up sans admins.Camelbinky (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
A police force is a flawed analogy, police exist only in class societies, and only to control the lower classes. Penyulap 06:38, 23 Jul 2012 (UTC)
So when did admins stop being part of the community? Could you dehumanize and stereotype and generalize a littlebit more about admins please, its so cute. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Let me share a little parable. I work in IT. Back when I was a front line tech, I took a call from a user who was annoyed because we didn't respond to his trouble ticket the way he he wanted. He tried to browbeat me giving him what he wanted by stating "you work for me. I pay your salary." My response was to hang up on him and ignore him for a day. When I spoke to him next, he asked why I did that. I told him that no, I did not work for him. I worked for the customers of our company, the same as him. Likewise, Camelbinky, I don't work for you. No admin works for you. All editors volunteer for the good of the project, and the good of the reader, regardless of what tools they have. And in this case, you have added the fallacious argument that admins are deserving of less say in the operation of this site than you have. I find that ridiculous. I'm not sure where your anti-admin bigotry originates from, but I can say that I understand why your position rarely attracts much support from anyone other than fellow zealots. Resolute 03:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Really doesnt get much support? That has not been my experience over the past 5 years of working on Wikipedia and seeing numerous threads on the Village Pumps. But ok. Bigotry? I'm sorry... I hope you intended a different word. As a Jew I find it offensive you would use "bigotry" as a word for someone who has my views. Next do I become a racist if I continue to try to make admins accountable?Camelbinky (talk) 03:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
For what? List their crimes here for all to read and I'll get the pitchforks and torches. Down with the Admins! They drink children's blood!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Also definition of bigot " a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who exhibits intolerance or animosity toward members of a group."·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No, I used the word I intended. But, it is rather cute that you are basically pulling the race card to deflect attention away from your motives. Your decision to be unreasonably offended is no fault of mine. Resolute 03:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Camelbinky, part of my goal in asking Admins for their comments is to get their support for changes by making sure their perspective on this is taken into account. Do you think people magically become a dick as soon as their editor rights are changed? I hope you don't. As with anything, it is obvious to you that something needs to change, but unless we all can see what you're seeing, it won't change. This should be more about trying to help administrators see themselves through your eyes, but also there is an element of you seeing the universe through theirs. I do think Admins could benefit from a bit of 'continuing education' and a upper level reminder to stay civil and avoid burnout. I believe this kind of leadership can best come from other administrators or WMF personnel who are willing to serve in a mentorship/leadership type role for the admin corps. But I think you might be letting your personal involvement here and past bad acts by admins color your responses. Let's look at admins as human beings, just as fallible, error prone and messed up as the rest of us are, and let's think about how we might fix things and fix a broken relationship here, rather than focusing on who specifically is the worst or how screwed up things might be. -- Avanu (talk) 03:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Very wise words Avanu. Thank you. I respect that.Camelbinky (talk) 03:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Resolute, for you- I have found out in a thread below that saying the F-word several times in a comment is apparently ok in Wikipedia so, I believe your fucking views are fucking wrong and I fucking bid you a good night sir.Camelbinky (talk) 03:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Fan-fucking-tastic! I see no reason why we cannot amicably agree to disagree, so I wish you the best of nights! Resolute 03:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
In this case, Avanu, I do find myself in agreement with Camelbinky. Those were wise words. And FWIW, I am unlikely to be the kind of admin xe is targeting, as I am a content admin whose use of the tools is pretty much only to block obvious vandals. For me "burnout" is likely the same as it is for you - editing fatigue. Resolute 03:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • How about a less drastic approach, which I think Dennis Brown has articulated in the past (recently I believe). In most cases we need not jump right to desysoping, why not have less punitive measures that could be used? In other words, why can't an admin get a block for telling someone to f--- off? They don't necessarily need desysoping in almost all cases, but a complete lack of accountability can be traced to the fact that little to nothing can/is done when admins do act abusively. I'm really not advocating for taking the bit away from any admin who ever slips up, I am all about forgiveness, so long as they demonstrate some contrition and make good-faith attempts to refocus and correct the behaviour. Also, while I do not want to dwell on the whole f-word thing in general, I will point out that the f-word has been ruled obscene by US courts and it is not in anyway covered by freedom of speech. Courts consider it obscene, so should we IMO. Also, if adults are using the f-word here freely, then an argument could be made that perhaps wikipedia should be for age 18 and older only. I couldn't take a 12 year-old to a movie with three or four f-words in it, so why would they be allowed to edit wikipedia if f-bombs are dropped here regularly. Do we want wikipedia to be an adult only site? Also, one could wonder how this issue may jeopardise our educational standing, afterall, if we are an adult site that condones obscenity, then how are we to maintain our educational status? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Careful! Saying the phrase "court of law" may be grounds for an NLT block. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk page stalkers

I really think it is inapproriate to be using the (talk page stalker) tag, and in general there is a lack of seriousness applied to the term "stalker". I don't think stalking is anything to be joking about at all. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

If you agree that "it is insensitive and trivializes a genuine issue", then stop it from happening. Yes there are bigger issues, however that does not mean we pass the buck on all smaller issues does it? One may argue that efforts to discourage use of the n-word would also fall under this category, since current civil rights advocates certainly have more important things to do than worry about a word, but they do, they should. Consider if the ACLU advised people of Jewish heritage to not worry about racial slurs made against them since there are certainly larger issues of concern. Don't pass the buck Mr. Wales, make it clear that a tag that trivializes a horrific criminal act is not appropriate here by making a statement at WP:TFD. People around here sometimes refer to you as a powerless figure-head, please show us that isn't the case. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Bwilkins' f-bombs

I agree Mr. Wales, I would much rather find solutions to our current problems then complain about a specific admin, however most non-admins are completely convinced that any such efforts would be utterly in vain. Some even go so far as to suggest that a coalition of admins would block any such effort. We need exceptionally strong leadership if we are going to reform the admin process, so I'll ask, are you willing to personally lead this effort you suggest? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Memex - Jimbo's inspiration?

I just ran across Gordon Crovitz: Who Really Invented the Internet? containing the delicious quote:

...Bush defined an ambitious peacetime goal for technologists: Build what he called a "memex" through which "wholly new forms of encyclopedias will appear, ready made with a mesh of associative trails running through them, ready to be dropped into the memex and there amplified." (emphasis added)

which is including in our article Memex

Just curious to know if Jimbo saw this prior to dreaming up this place?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  • There was talk of associative retrieval: I am not sure how much Jimbo knew about the "Memex" concepts, but one of his major contributions was to push for the wiki-edited and group-approved contents of articles, rather than a 7-level, expert pre-approval process before articles were considered "ready". The concept of "peer-reviewed" articles was quite the norm in intellectual circles, and it was considered risky to, instead, "wp:Assume good faith" that most people would write accurate articles, without the prior scrutiny of expert peers to pre-screen articles in each topic area. When I was developing the early forms of search-engine technology, the related search-method concept was called "associative retrieval" and that was a major influence which led me to promote the multi-word text search in hypertext software systems which I was developing. Unfortunately, the rest of the "industry" was obsessed with "icons" which any young child could "point-and-click" while totally ignoring the importance of "text technology" which would enable future children (who actually can learn words) to specify a set of words to search within vast collections of information, without knowing the chapter title, section header, or database key to retrieve the data. Those future children would learn the power of text (and say, "Adios icons"), because text was extensible to new words ("email", "blog", "wiki" or "txting"), which could be pronounced from phonetic rules (little chance of "point-and-speak" icons), and even those new words could be searched in the vast collections, due to the relative rarity of word patterns. Anyway, in that regard, the phrase, "mesh of associative trails running through them" relates to our current wp:wikilink (hyperlinks) and wikisearch to match articles containing a set of multiple words. Meanwhile, Jimbo's notion of wiki-edited and group-approved live articles ran contrary to generations of policies about the need for pre-approved, peer-reviewed articles. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Championship Points System

Hey Jimbo! Anyway, I was wondering if you could give me your opinion on my newest creation, the Championship Points System (or simply the C.P.S.) The C.P.S. is used to determine the greatest pro wrestling holder of a particular championship of all-time (or every title from every organization for that matter.) The formula for earning points in this system is quite straightforward and has scarce flaws: Take the total number of days as champion and multiply it by the total number of reigns with the title. There are some special rules and exceptions as listed below:

  • If a wrestler's total duration with the title do not equal at least one day, then no points are earned on reign length. Instead, the total number of reigns are added and whatever reigns he/she had with the championship is the exact score.
  • If one of a wrestler's reign lengths is unknown, then the best known length is used in place of it.

I hope this revolutionary system can get approved. Thanks, Jayemd (talk) 11:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It sounds interesting and fun, but not really for Wikipedia. (Original research.) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

More pillars

In wondering why these bottlenecks persist (slow edit-preview for 2 years), I have been remembering the strategy for "continuous improvement" (with Kaizen and all). Basically, the underlying values of a system, the pillars, must be set to favor, to empower major improvements. Perhaps some new pillars: Performance, Progress, and Readership.

  • Performance: Even the word "wiki" means "fast" and everyone should worry about performance, otherwise it is no longer "Wiki-" anything. Hence, we have articles on Egypt/Israel that need 30-40 seconds to edit-preview. That ain't wiki. If processes drop into 7-level approval steps before allowed into mainspace, that is no longer fast. Let's coin the term, now, to beware when it turns "Sicki-" (easy to remember!) and needs treatment to regain health as a wiki. The value of Performance is not be belittled, but instead becomes a core pillar.
  • Progress: I was warned, many years ago, of the adage, "People dislike change". That means: if you hold a vote to change something, the election will typically decide "no". I think we have enough evidence to confirm that adage certainly seems true. The whole driving force for progress must be an underlying value in the system. It is no longer wise to ask people if they will allow change; instead, it must be guaranteed, where Progress is an underlying value.
  • Readership: WP promises "anyone has access" and if the readers say that it is too slow to bear, then that is another reason to make improvements. Now, the concerns of the readers become a major value in the WP system, another pillar.

More later. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:34, 16 July, revised 21:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Impact of pillars: The key point here, about emphasizing those issues as pillars, is to emphasize their vital importance when sorting out priorities. Consequently, the related guidelines, standards and best practices would be written with central focus on performance speed (or clarity), plus easing progress towards better methods, and also focusing on concerns for current or future readership, as also being high-priority issues. No longer would the speed of article page-loads, or reformatting, be a lower secondary issue allowed to become slower, year after year. For instance, more people would know how a small template with one #switch of 20 choices could run over 500x times per second. Also, more people would know setting the Special:Preferences default image thumbnail-size smaller or larger, from the typical 220px width, to perhaps 120px or 250px, would bypass article-cache copies for that user and incur the reformat penalty for almost every article viewed, whether popular major articles or stubs, so all would appear by reformatting, 10-50x times slower than viewing the cache versions. Similarly, for viewing prior revisions of an article, more users would know how any prior revision of a page is reformatted every time when viewed, even if already just viewed a minute earlier, the page get reformatted again. Hence, the pillars direct the amount of focus of all users upon the core values of the operation. The pillars determine the focus of the basic "sum of all knowlege" for running a wiki better. Otherwise, editors could justifiably state, "Don't worry about Readership, because any readers, who care enough, can join a discussion to form consensus", rather than pro-actively consider Readership an important aspect which always influences any decision made. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:02, 17 July, revised 03:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Where can I find a facepalm image of sufficient size to respond to this? No, wrong, just wrong. "the pillars direct the amount of focus of all users upon the core values of the operation" Yes, they do - and the "core values" of Wikipedia have nothing whatsoever to do with "speed of article page-loads". This is an encyclopaedia, not an exercise in abstract software 'optimisation'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, this is a wiki-encyclopaedia, and a "wiki" is a type of computer website (networking interface), so ignoring the computer aspects would be ignoring half of the name "Wikipedia". -Wikid77 21:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
P.S. "It is no longer wise to ask people if they will allow change; instead, it must be guaranteed, where Progress is an underlying value". Is that a direct quote from uncle Joe, or a paraphrase? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Joe generally tail ended the majority position in the party, much more of a demagogue than a dictator. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Progress is part of the "quality revolution" (see: Google Search link), where the entire organization finds ways to change to better practices. When people know more about the computerized display and transfer of information, then they can better judge how to improve the system each month, rather than wait until articles need almost a whole minute to edit-preview. -Wikid77 21:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Vacuous management-speak isn't 'progress'. And Wikipedia would be better if its users needed to know less about "the computerized display and transfer of information". AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be great if article editing could be faster, but such technicalities should not be pillars, nor should they motivate any changes to content writing policy. Technical formatting should be in the service of article writing, not the other round. Solutions to technical problems should be judged by their usefulness as experienced by contributers, not by any standardized measure of efficasiousness or "end user satisfaction".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Must predict problems against performance standards: I understand the view toward "usefulness as experienced by contributers" and that would become part of the focus, but there also need to be prior performance standards, set in place beforehand, so that techniques, templates, or images can be managed, in advance, by predicting the impact on pre-defined performance standards. It is not enough to ask accident victims what should be improved, nor to ask ex-Wikipedians who have quit, as to their recommended better standards of operation afterward. Instead, I try to think about "industry standards" where a computer "should respond to the user within 7 seconds" if practical. Many studies in ergonomics have revealed aspects of computer performance which could be used to define some basic performance standards/guidelines when working with computer users, subject to "wp:Ignore all rules" but try to codify how edit-preview of 45 seconds is not acceptable, year after year. -Wikid77 21:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Try not thinking about "industry standards". Wikipedia isn't an industry. The fact that it uses computer hardware and software to accomplish its purpose is incidental to the purpose itself. If you have concrete proposals regarding software improvements, raise them at the appropriate place. Your proposals to radically alter core tenets of Wikipedia in order to set arbitrary 'performance standards' is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Pillars are about. And do you have any evidence whatsoever that significant numbers of ex-Wikipedians quit because of problems regarding edit-preview delays? On the face of it, this seems rather implausible - unless they were all working on the same few articles (out of the millions we have) which supposedly have 45-second delays. Yes, the user interface needs improving. I don't think that anyone would dispute this - but not at the expense of forgetting what we are here for, and certainly not by introducing a whole load of technobabble (which is what your proposed 'pillars' will be to most people) into the very definition of what Wikipedia is about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I started off thinking 'groan another person with instruction creep'. But having thought about it I think there is a real problem with 5P. It concentrates o producing an encyclopaedia and it ignores the other part of the mission - to disseminate it. My experience talking about article size indicates people just have no conception of that side of the business. There are some efforts in making articles less technical or some people do try to split articles down into readable chunks but it definitely is a second class activity. I think what is perhaps needed more than another pillar is a single statement mission statement at the beginning - what the purpose of the whole business is. About the nly statement along those lines at the top level is in WP:NOT 'Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia'. We need to icorporate meta:mission 'The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.' Plonking down a densely written dattabase of facts is not disseminating effectively. Dmcq (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree - too often, debates about Wikipedia revolve around the needs and wishes of contributors, rather than those of our readers. As for 'databases' I think I've made my opinion known before: not only should Wikipedia not aspire to be a 'database', but it should actively discourage such activity - notably in regard to biographies, which tend to become repositories for dubious 'categories' and the like, added more often than not by someone more interested in the category than the subject of the article. Do we really need to tell our readers that Russell Brand is a member of "Categories: 1975 births, 20th-century actors, 21st-century actors, 21st-century writers, Actors from Essex, Alumni of the Drama Centre London, Alumni of the Italia Conti Academy of Theatre Arts, Big Brother (UK), English anarchists, English artistsEnglish autobiographers, English bloggers, English comedians, English comedy writers' English documentary filmmakers, English dramatists and playwrights, English essayists, English expatriates in the United States, English film actors, English film producers, English game show hosts, English guitarists, English humanitarians, English motivational speakers, English novelists, English non-fiction writers, English philosophers, English poets, English radio DJs, English radio personalities, English satirists, English singers, English socialists, English songwriters, English stand-up comedians, English television actors, English television personalities, English television presenters, English television writers, English vegans, Katy Perry, Living people, People from Grays, People self-identifying as alcoholics, People self-identifying as substance abusers, People with bipolar disorder, The Guardian journalists, Transcendental Meditation practitioners"? Cut out some of this cruft, and I'm sure Wikipedia would run faster, come to think of it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Template:Cite_pmid made WP a database of journal articles: The ideas about reduced categories and avoiding database-pages seem to fit the same concepts. For instance, the current Template:Cite_pmid, with 6,000 subtemplates as one for the title of each journal article, has treated the template wp:namespace as a database to store 1-line entries as thousands of footnote citations, each with just the title, authors, URL-link, journal name, publisher and date. Instead, those could have been footnotes listed inside each article, to avoid the current problem that some of the 6,000 subtemplates of Template:Cite_pmid are not referenced in any WP article (such as {Cite_pmid/10191808} or {Cite_pmid/10086577} ). If many footnotes were commonly repeated between some articles, then I think a few multi-footnote templates would have been enough to reduce the repeated footnotes, rather than treat the current 6,000 entries as if each were needed in dozens of articles. However, more study is needed in that area, but the technique of using templates as a database system is likely to lead to worse computer performance: transcluding "4" {Cite_pmid/xxxxx}, in an article, is worse than hand-coding 4 article-title citations. Plus, to change to another citation-style, then each of the 6,000 Cite_pmid subtemplates would need to be edited. As for numerous categories, perhaps some should be deleted, or more should simply become hidden categories, to reduce the "info-spam" at the bottom of many popular articles. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:49, 22 July, revised 15:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Template:Cite_doi is a template database from May 2008: About 8 months before {Cite_pmid}, the Template:Cite_doi was used to begin creating a similar database of 1-line title footnotes in the template wp:namespace. Similarly, many of the thousands of subtemplates of {Cite_doi} are used in only 1 or 2 articles, and the computer-processing overhead to expand a single-purpose template in such limited uses is not worth any imagined savings of effort when writing a 1-line journal footnote which must be separately edited to change the citation-style text format. Perhaps there are limited cases where a footnote is repeated in 10 articles, but the concept is similar to creating a one-line template for every text phrase used 2 or 3 times, such as "Argumentum ad populum", to avoid retyping. The {Cite_doi} templates are using a computerized resource, and the performance impact should have been considered when planning to create, invoke, and re-edit all those subtemplates. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out loud. I don't want to say this is a non-problem—the pageload time while trying to edit some of these large articles is certainly grotesque—but it has surprisingly little relevance to everyday editing. Even for the high-template-use, high-load articles, editing by section rather than trying to open the whole article makes the problem essentially disappear for practical purposes. I'm a little perturbed by the willingness expressed here to rip out large swathes of work for rather vague or theoretical reasons, with very little evidence that this is actually what the community wants. (The template-subpages-as-database is grotesque, but that speaks to the need for WikiData or some kind of backend that drives them in a non-kludgy way.)

Let's not forget that we're creating a work of reference here. An encyclopedia is used by a very large population with differing information needs, and of necessity, it's not going to be perfectly optimized for any one class of users. We also have a lot of people using the encyclopedia for things that are, frankly, way out of our scope. (Take a look at Special:ArticleFeedbackv5 and you'll see we have a surprising number of users trying to use the Wikipedia page for "X" as if it were "X"'s own web site!) Some of the statistics I see quoted to support changes in our format or approach, like length of time spent on page or most popular subjects, are inevitably going to be skewed by this. But that's purely incidental to our mission: the fact that some people are using our screwdriver as a hammer doesn't mean we need to put a claw attachment on it. Choess (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Relevance to whose everyday editing: Please remember that I have noted these problems because the page-load problem, reformatting articles 10x-50x slower than the cache-article copies, affected every article I viewed, or edited, for every minute of every hour of every day of every week of every month of every year of every decade that I was using Wikipedia with the Special:Preferences default thumbnail-size set higher/lower than 220px (250px in my case for several years). I knew, theoretically ("wp:Don't worry about performance"), how articles were being formatted to "quickly" display cache copies, with the username-menu border overlayed around the cached-page contents; however, Wikipedia was still just so insufferably S-L-O-W that I began to investigate the performance to see why, despite all the don't-worries, Wikipedia was so unbelievably S-L-O-W  A-L-L  T-H-E  T-I-M-E  F-O-R  Y-E-A-R-S. That is when I discovered the "username penalty" for users who set Special:Preferences to custom settings such as thumbnail size higher/lower than 220px. It does not matter that a user wants 250px images for years, the performance never ever improved, year after year after year. Instead, now that I am worrying about performance, the operation of Wikipedia will improve year after year after year, for numerous editors, in every hour of every day.... -Wikid77 (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
    Whose indeed? I've been here for about as long as you (and we're neither of us quite decadal yet), roved over a fair bit of the encyclopedia, and performance just hasn't bothered me. I was shocked to see that my numbers for editing India were similar to yours, because load time has just not stood out for me as a deterrent to editing. I'm not saying this to discredit either your experience or your work to resolve it; I'm just trying to explain why you seem to be finding these performance improvements a hard sell. Most people seem to have reached a modus vivendi in editing Wikipedia where performance really isn't a major factor for them at present. I'm sure we'd all enjoy it if it improved, but I think the effects are far less severe for most editors than they are for you, and that's why more people aren't getting up and agreeing that your improvements are urgently needed. You're trying to sell Lamborghinis to people happily taking their kids to soccer practice in a minivan, which is why they're ignoring all the great information about acceleration and fussing about the lack of cargo space.
    When you follow up a cool reception for "fcite_*" with a proposal like this to add more core pillars to the encyclopedia, it surprises and agitates people. First, since the proposal is aimed at solving a problem that, for whatever reason, doesn't seem to bother most people, it has the air of overkill, like passing a Constitutional amendment so that your town can hire a dogcatcher. Second, your second proposed pillar is most alarming. Not only is "progress" hopelessly subjective (I'd hate to see you slugging it out with Andy Mabbett over the issue of whether improved load times or comprehensive emissions of metadata are more progressive), but in the current setting, there's an implication that performance improvements are, of necessity, progress, and that you should have carte blanche to force them on the community. I don't think that's what you intended, because it's clear from your work on fcite_* that you're listening to what people are saying and trying to make the template useful for them, but some of the social approaches you've chosen are just about guaranteed to rile people up.
    You may not think so, but I would actually like to see your performance improvements implemented. The fact that you've not only identified a real problem but have the intelligence and skills to start solving it is an opportunity not to be missed. But you need a different strategy. Touting fcite_* and hoping it spreads by diffusion will have a minimal impact for years and years. If you want to improve performance throughout the encyclopedia, it needs to be to the installed base of Template:Citation/core.
    If fcite_* can really handle 95% of the cases covered by current citation templates, it makes much more sense to change over the 5% than the 95%. Can any of the current changes be backported to Citation/core and its descendants? What parameters or functions are left out of fcite, and can we devise workarounds for them? (Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals is collecting the contents of all the "journal" parameters in citations throughout the project, so it should be doable.) If we can identify those special cases and drive their replacement with AWB, bots, and so on, fcite_* can become the core citation, which is what we should be aiming for. Choess (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Choess, you are moving the target from "fixing slow edit-preview" to "using faster Fcite templates in 95% of all articles" (1.6 million {Cite*} articles). Instead, I was thinking about specific performance, to use Fcite in about 500 of the most-popular articles (>6,000 pageviews/day), then expand to perhaps 16,000 high-traffic articles, but where speed of edit-preview (or reformat for thumbnail-size) has been slow (>7 second delay). Currently, the 23 forks of {Cite_*} templates have a logistical momentum, in the sense that they use Template:Citation/core as a workhorse, core template as if it could be improved to run 5x-15x faster, and still support all various options of the 23 {Cite_*} forks. I do not see any technical feasibility for such speed improvements in {Citation/core}, which are readily available in the current 5x-15x faster {Fcite_*} templates. The analogy I have given is: sports car versus slow covered wagon. All of the 23 {Cite_*} forks are hitched to the covered wagon, and each of the {Fcite_*} faster versions is a sports car. Perhaps there could a large sports car which carried a covered wagon in the back, but Fcite is not it. The faster Fcite templates are only needed in relatively few articles, where edit-preview (or reformat for Special:Preferences thumbnail/options) has become excessively slow (10-45 seconds long). Now, I understand your notion to apply the {Fcite} improvements into most articles, but logistically, it is just too difficult to try fixing all the rare-parameter variations among 1.6 million articles. I hope that clarifies the difficulties. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm certainly against putting anything like performance as a specific aim into 5P because I know the way people respond to aims. What I would like is a bit at the beginning saying something like it is the aim of Wikipedia to produce a widely read, informative, free, reliable encyclopaedia. Unfortunately at the moment just having free reliable encyclopaedia with no mention of readers encourages editors to cram facts into huge articles and change the lead to be as far as possible true rather than introductory summaries for people who are new to the subject. Editors should be encouraged to think more of the readership and their reading it via the internet. However performance per se though it helps readers would if put too high up as an aim lead to crass stupidities far worse than the current content cramming. One needs to be extremely careful what one asks for. Dmcq (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Intent of WP:IAR?

Is the rule allowing people to "Ignore All Rules" intended to be liberally applied or conservatively applied? I've found myself in a debate with our Administrators who often apply policy in a very strict way against editors, but apply policy to themselves in a very liberal way.

The debate is over the letter of policy and how closely it should be followed. Quite a few admins say they have 'standard operating procedures' and when these are checked against policy, the two don't line up. So does 'SOP' trump policy as a WP:IAR exemption, or should it be the exception, and if Admins determine their own SOP, does that mean that the policy developed at various pages is overridden and should it be changed to reflect the policies in SOP? How does SOP get changed? -- Avanu (talk) 01:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

A simple solution may be to restructure the admin/de-admin process, so that it is less like the supreme court, and more like congress. If an admin had to get re-elected every two years, you would see the above problem reduced greatly. There is no functional recall, which prevents many potential admins from getting a chance, and also prevents many poor admins from ever losing the bit. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
That's an excellent suggestion. Unfortunately you're not the first person to suggest it; it is highly unlikely to succeed. Adminship for life is a big problem here. RfA standards have risen considerably (I remember seeing a diff from circa 2002 where a user was given an admin bit by Tim Starling after asking, "Can I be an admin?"). Many of those who were made admins years ago wouldn't stand a chance at RfA today. That is the very reason I find it highly unlikely they would be willing to submit to any kind of reelection prcoess now. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
"Willing to submit"? Can you even hear yourself man? That's the whole point really. Aren't there about 4 million users and like 1,500 admins? Why are we submitting to them, is the question you should ask yourself. If Jimbo said it's no big deal, then shouldn't it be no big deal? Well, they have certainly made it a big deal havn't they? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Admins are not police, a congress, a court or anything but a group of individuals who are here to SERVE the Community. If we hold them responsible and remind each and every one of them each time they through their weight around, you would see them back down. Like Gabe mentions, there's more of us than them. They dont create policies and they sure as heck do not create secret SOP's that apply to the rest of us and "enforce" whatever "laws" they decide. Perhaps time has come for a new revolution. We keep talking about the abuses and needing reform, but we allow a minority of admins block it. We dont need admins to make the consensus. We can make the consensus ourselves and force the Community standard on THEM. Wikipedia is not a Representative Democracy. It is a democracy in the purest sense. Stop waiting for them to reform themselves. DO SOMETHING.Camelbinky (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the drive to stop people criticising admins is also suppressing opportunities for the community to stand behind, and back up, our admins. It's a mainstream place to address editor retention. Penyulap 05:39, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point, many good admins are being denied the chance for the community to show their support. That's why a RfA every two years would go a long way toward equalising the structure. Afterall, if you have been acting rude for the last two years, you likely won't be re-elected, if you've been a "good" admin you most certainly would. It may seem overly simplistic but elegance is often the signature of truth. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
That's not just a good point, that's a brilliant point. If we "stop people criticising admins" we also hinder the positive reinforcement of good admins who behave honourably despite heated circumstances. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • That is utter nonsense. RfA is not "reinforcing good admins" it is humiliating nitpicking, and no one who is actually a reasonable person is likely to submit to it - only those who already have strong cliques to back them up or who don't give a damn if some people don't like them. Now it is the everyday admin bitching of people who simply assume that anyone who has the tool is a powerhungry bully that eventually makes those whore aren't powr hungry bullies either becoe just that or lay down the tools. I did the latter.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, there were proposals, not too long ago, to set up a Wikipedia Council as well as a Community Council of Wikipedia, with all the rules and bureaucracy to your heart's content. However, I have opposed all of such proposals – I don't see why we should try and mimic a government that is already hopelessly broken in real life. Then again, I'm just pointing all this out now. Obviously, nobody realized of any such problems until the proverbial shit hits the fan, which it obviously has for the OPs above. --MuZemike 07:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

So its a pretty successful thing, all told. Not sure if you were just giving us some stats or making a bigger point about the big picture here, but either way, thanks for the stats. -- Avanu (talk) 07:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


The reason you have been on the opposite of the consensus side in several debates is that your commentary has simply been unhelpful. The unanswered comment I left on your talk page points out that interceding on behalf of problem editors sends them the wrong message. If everyone pointed out to a problem editor that they need to stop, there is a chance they will stop and later learn how Wikipedia works. However, when someone takes their side, they are envigorated and see the support as proof that their strategy of repeatedly pursuing their case will win in the end. The common result is that they end up indefinitely blocked, and good editors are disrupted by the entirely unnecessary noise. It's lovely to imagine that one flower might bloom from the cases of disruption reported at ANI, but inappropriately pursuing that outcome drives away good editors. Johnuniq (talk) 08:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


There are currently little more than 700 "active admins" most of whom are not particularly active by current RFA standards, we are getting rarer and it is certainly time for new blood in the admin cadre. But the solution to that is not to be perfectionist as to our existing admins, nor to get rid of many if not most of those we still have. The solution is to fix or replace RFA so that more good editors are willing to run. ϢereSpielChequers 10:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The adminship of an admin that abuse the rules should be revoked. The rules are for everyone or they are for no one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.232.149 (talk)

@Avanu Policy just reflects the standard practices of wikipedians. If policy is out of sync with that, then it is the text of the policy that needs to be updated to reflect current usage. Policy isn't there to be blindly followed in that way, wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

(mob) sounds creepy Penyulap 12:14, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)

@IRWolfie-: Policy should be obeyed by everyone. If you want to do something against a policy, which you think is out of sync, then you should try to change the policy. If your attempt to change the policy fails, then you should not be allowed to enforce your policy version. You are not an prophet that has perfect insight to the the standard practices of wikipedians, and you should not be allowed to impose your false prophetic views or rather your personal whims. The rules are for everyone or they are for no one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.232.149 (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

IAR says: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." The other rules we have can be taken to define what one in general should consider to be an "impovement". So, adding original research to a text would not be a improvement. You can interpret the other rules as defining what encyclopedic content is. But they convey the general idea and in particular cases, applying some rule could be counterproductive. Count Iblis (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

One problem with "Policy just reflects the standard practices of wikipedians" as is said above is that often 'standard practices' aren't always helpful. That's why we debate and set policy in the first place. For example, the unfortunate motto of too many Wikipedians: "Using logic and reason isn’t enough. You have to be a dick to everyone who doesn’t think like you." (from this episode of South Park), but our policy/pillar of Civility is crystal clear on this. People regularly ignore policy to do what they personally think is right or what they feel like doing despite what others have said. IAR is a pillar as well, but I would say that Civility trumps that pillar. I think the general idea of IAR was not to allow people to become arbitrary and capricious (and thereby incivil), but to permit the 'exceptional' case where the rules fail to address the situation. Jimbo may have a better perspective on this that I do, but I think Civility encourages the interpretation I just gave. -- Avanu (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Can you give an example of some hypothetical situation where you would necessarily have to be incivil when defending some edit to some article, that edit being something that at least in principle does fit in that article? If you don't have to compromize on anything you could reasonably argue for by staying civil, then there isn't an issue with IAR here. Count Iblis (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it is a requirement that any of us do anything. So no one *has* to be incivil. However, people often feel a desire to be incivil, especially when they are in a disagreement on something. Additionally, sometimes we are incivil or inconsiderate without intending to be. As I said, the Civility pillar should almost always trump the IAR pillar. But in practice, it doesn't. I see bitey actions all the time on Wikipedia, yet people do have a choice to avoid incivility, or show greater civility by fixing mistakes. So if IAR is the exception, and fairness the rule, why do people justify IAR so much? -- Avanu (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Point of fact- incivility is a word, uncivil is a word, incivil is not a word.Camelbinky (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/incivil http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incivil (btw, the Webster link requires that you get there from Google, unless you pay the subscription fee) -- Avanu (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and this might just be me, but in my mind "uncivil" is a stronger word than "incivil". Maybe it is simply that in-civil doesn't sound like as much of a rejection as un-civil does. Anyway.... my 2 cents on that. -- Avanu (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
"Ain't" is in the dictionary too btw. Does not make it proper English. Incivil is not proper English either.Camelbinky (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Not that a debate over what is and isn't "proper" English is in any way a part of this, but incivil seems to have hung on for the past 500 years (Etymology Online) so, decry and pillory it as you will. -- Avanu (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Incivil is an old word but still in regular use among English speakers [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I thought incivil was a noun, and uncivil was an adjective. At least that is how I try to use them. Dennis Brown - © (WER) 22:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I have heard the word "acivil" used in reference to severe autism. It has a subtly different meaning - behavior that is not civil, but not because the person wants to not be civil, but rather that civility is a concept that they don't quite grasp. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Stop acting like Wikipedia is not already hopelessly broken. I'm not trying to make Wikipedia resemble a real state - that would be absurd. But the inability of the community to deal with the issues facing the encyclopedia requires at least some element of centralized decision-making. Wer900talkcoordinationconsensus defined 04:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is flawed for sure, but I can't help but wonder what anyone who feels it is "hoplessly broken" is doing here. To plagarize paraphrase Winston Churchill, Wikipedia is the worst way to run an online encyclopedia, except for all the others. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps Wer900 didn't lose hope of fixing it, yet. Parohstein (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

your name was mentioned. What do you want in Wikipedia?

Your name came up in a deletion review for an article where the closing administrator admitted it met the WP:GNG but felt that didn't mean it deserved an article, despite most people in the AFD thinking it did and saying Keep. [29] I'd be interested in hearing your opinions on this. Dream Focus 16:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a thought

I was in the middle of a fairly large edit when I checked my watchlist and saw all the drama starting to flare up on this page. One thing that I think we all forget - myself included - is that we are here primarily for the readers. Not to pursue our own personal agendas within the community, not to continue longstanding disputes, but to provide a well-referenced, well-written, complete encyclopedia for the hundreds of millions of people who come to the projects every single day. In a month, no reader will remember - or likely even know about! - some petty argument on Jimbo's talk page, or ANI, or WT:RFA. What they will remember is a piece of content that they found really helpful, engaging, and interesting. They will remember that they learned something, and they will come back to us as a source of information. That's what the wiki should thrive on, not petty drama. I hope that anyone reading this will maybe go off and create a missing stub, or source a statement in an article about their favorite band, or review a GAN. Because that's why we're really here. I try to remember that every day I'm here. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Well said. -- œ 04:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Albacore (talk) 05:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
    • 👍 Like Beautiful and poignant...... if only everyone on Wikipedia had this view.. and just brought the fun, comradery and kindness back to the project..... (something I fear we may have lost since about 2007 when the Wikicaste-system because a lot worse) :)--Coin945 (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • See #Censorship and 2012 Summer Olympics above and the deluge of edits to inform the readers that resulted. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 11:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Archived, see: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_111#Censorship and 2012 Summer Olympics, for comments in that thread. For various lists about 1.8 million articles to fix, see: wp:BACKLOG. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
👍 Like ```Buster Seven Talk 06:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia culture (over discipline)

Surely Keilana's thoughts here represent the underlying Wikipedia culture – the foundation on which the pillars are based? Openness and critical debate, sure, but also awareness of the broader picture of what we're doing here. My impression is that, around and about on Wikipedia, there's currently an unfortunate emphasis on discipline above culture. Of course, enforcement is an essential tool to prevent POV pushing and other dangerous or disruptive activities and behaviour. But I suspect background attrition might be more amenable to cultural initiatives prompting us editors to focus on the real editorial task, here primarily for the readers ... to provide a well-referenced, well-written, complete encyclopedia. (Without taking the fun out of editing!)

I wouldn't want to suggest recruiting Jimbo's photogenic gaze for yet another soul searching campaign, but I feel more might somehow be done to promote Wikipedia's underlying culture within the community.--MistyMorn (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Well said. I'm not sure how to do all this, but that is the goal of my efforts, to affect a change in our culture, to be less reactive, more proactive, to engage and find positive solutions instead of just sitting and pointing fingers. In order of importance, first comes the readers, then the content creators, then the janitors. Dennis Brown - © (WER) 14:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I really appreciate your attitude Dennis. You and a few others have significantly contributed to the improved atmosphere on the admin noticeboards of late. Thank you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree Dennis's approach is really helpful - exemplary imo. What I'm wondering is how to facilitate that sort of helpful approach around the site (admins, but not only). Having more admins, less stressed out, might be one factor, imo - though not by itself sufficient. Placing greater cultural kudos around here on thoughtful communication and wording, avoidance of unnecessary drama, might be another tool. So that maybe we end up saying "that's the way we do things on Wikipedia" more often not only in reference to the frankness and openness of critical discussions, but also to their general tone. Because that's the way we choose to do things as a community, perhaps. 2c, —MistyMorn (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • 1. Always participate in RfA. Do your homework and only support candidates that have the right demeanor for the job. Don't worry about a lack of experience in a one or two areas, that can be learned. Support any candidate that will be independent, trustworthy, calm and tolerant. Oppose others, no matter how gifted.
  • 2. Seek out and find new candidates that fit this bill. If you don't want to nom them yourself, find someone who will.
  • 3. When an admin "messes up", don't attack them, engage them. Be as polite and calm as you expect them to be, but be persistent. We don't want to remove admins, we want to persuade them. We are all human, we all make mistakes. Forgive in the same manner you would want to be forgiven.
  • 4. Always take the time to reward good behavior as much as you take note of bad behavior. It helps if you not only tell someone what they are doing wrong, but let them know you notice what they do right. Bring them into this culture, don't push them away.
  • I've been called Pollyanna for thinking this way, but it really is this simple, particularly if many Wikipedians do this. This is how it becomes culture. There is no reason to make it harder than it is: politely demand excellence, reward excellence, be willing to help others achieve excellence, and accept that we are human and we make mistakes sometimes. Dennis Brown - © (WER) 21:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
It might not be a popular thing to say this, but as much as saying not to attack an Admin when they mess up, their fellow Admins need to hold them accountable and not make excuses for it. I agree with your overall sentiment, and I even understand the 'professional courtesy' aspect of a lot of the admin interaction, but similarly, when an admin and an editor stand side by side, their actions should be evaluated and corrected in like fashion for like actions. I'm not encouraging going after Admins, simply that Admins recognize not just in word, but also in deed that their counterparts should be held to a standard. However, I won't belabor the point, I'll leave it at this alone for a while. -- Avanu (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Dennis, I disagree. The "total forgiveness" approach IMO is extreme and breaks down. (If applied to non-admins as well as admins, there would never be any blocks, especially indef blocks, would there.) It has the unintended, undesirable effect of being "enabler" to admins who conduct themselves roguishly and also abuse their mop. The point Gabe has made (not that it wasn't common knowledge) is that a double standard exists re admin vs. non-admin behavior. Please compare these two divergent concept solutions (because they aren't consistent; they're mutually exclusive):

When an admin "messes up", don't attack them, engage them. ... We don't want to remove admins, we want to persuade them. ... Forgive in the same manner you would want to be forgiven. -- Dennis Brown

and:

I think that solutions lie precisely in these directions: make it easier to become an admin so that more people can share the burden, and easier to lose the bit when there are problems. -- Jimbo

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm talking about singular mistakes, not habitual problems. I agree that having more admins helps, and making it easier to get the bit removed or restricted is a good idea. I've pitched that in a number of forums. But if you can't forgive the occasional mistake or bad judgement, you end up with a monoculture of admins, which I think is the most dangerous situation of all. Dennis Brown - © (WER) 02:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Although I too share in Jimbo's vision of a future where its easier to become and be removed from Admin I think that the culture on Wikipedia has evolved (or devolved depending on your perspective) to a point where its more likely to get harder on both ends than easier. Additionally with less and less folks applying for admin ship (except the remarkable number currently) and the numbers that are leaving or getting banished by Arbcom we are more likely to have more problems with admins in the future. I still, as I have suggested several times, think that unbundling the tools into sets as has been done with some. This would allow people to use and learn a set before requesting another as well as being able to focus on the area they care about. The majority of admins do not use the entire set but specialize in a certain area (vandal fighting, content promotion, content deletion, etc.) so IMO it would be more advantagious to continue to create these "bundles" of tools so that these specialty tasks will continue to be completed without having to fight through the RFA process. Kumioko (talk) 02:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Unbundling is an interesting idea that deserves discussion, but I think the bigger problem is one of attitude, not of tools. If an admin has the right attitude about adminship, having too many tools shouldn't matter. Dennis Brown - © (WER) 14:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I partially agree but its not just the attitude of the editor its also the attitude of the voter in the RFA process. The prevailing attitude is that one can't be trusted to use some of the tools unless they have insert your personal preference criteria here. For example I would be unlikely to use a number of the tools but what would be of great benefit to me personally would be the ability to edit a protected page or template without having to be an admin, or to see some of the admin restricted reports (such as unwatched pages), to be able to use some of the admin restricted functions in AWB, or to be able to perform certain other maintenance related tasks without having to add an edit protected template and wait several days to a couple weeks for an admin to stumble upon it. It aggravates me beyond description that after more than 5 years, 350, 000 edits across every namespace in WP and a variety of other things that I can't be trusted with a few simple tools to help me be more efficient and productive to the pedia. Now I am only using myself as an example but there are a whole lot of other folks out there that can do some of these things without needing to be admins which many of us have no desire to fight through the RFA process to get. Kumioko (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
It's ironic that you use yourself as an example, someone who has evaded a block to edit by using their bot which shows you will abuse flags. To me that shows you would abuse the unblock tool for sure and likely some of the others. In your case it isn't an issue of RfA is broken but that you have shown glimpses of not being a trustworthy user. That being said there aren't really that many tools that admins have that can actually be unbundled. Admins have far less tools that you seem to think. The only three that are really used are deleting, blocking, protecting. All of which should be admin only tools. -DJSasso (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
If God turned up, would he meet with your approval or would you ignore him too ? Penyulap 17:10, 25 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Well DJSasso lets look at that comment. At the time I was engaged in about 10 different discussions about various topics and was blocked because a user was showing undo ownership of an article and I reported it, made a snide comment and got blocked for Edit warring. I didn't make a change but Ultraexactzz assumed I was going to and blocked me for good measure, IMO to make sure I couldn't comment on the ongoing discussions, but thats my opinion. I then used my bot to leave a message in 2 places that I couldn't respond so they would know. So now, because the Wiki software isn't smart enough to allow an editor to continue commenting in ongoing discussions while blocked and the community isn't mature or willing enough to recognize a bad block, I am labelled as untrustworthy. Hogwash and infuriating. That was it and the rest was blown out of proportion by a bunch of folks who wanted me out of the way and WikiProject United States clsoed down. I thought that then and I still think that now. So now because an admin made a bad call and I lost my patience and became frustrated at how I got screwed and the other editor was allowed to continue showing article ownership. Yeah I got mad and lost my cool...and almost left the place completely. I understand what your saying but the untrustworthy editor handle is completely absurd. How many admins have been blocked, 20, 50 a hundred? and they get to keep the tools? But I can't be trusted to have them. Its just childish, insulting and frankly a bit unrealistic. Kumioko (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
BTW, to assume I would abuse the tools would also assume that I have abused others in the past. Since I use scripts, AWB with custom modules, I have helped others write their modules and code, I use a variety of other things like Huggle, Hotcat and Twinkle that would mean that I must have abused them as well, which I have not so your argument really has no merit other than to try and discredit me and show that you really don't know what your talking about on this particular matter. Kumioko (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
In the last month, I've supported a couple of different admin candidates that had blocks in their past (one of them I even nominated), so it didn't affect my vote in the least. Like I said way up top, forgive the same way you want to be forgiven. It isn't a Christian-only sentiment (I'm not a Christian or otherwise affiliated, for that matter) it is just a life philosophy, an understanding that we all make mistakes. Some will overlook it at RfA, some won't, but plenty of admins have blocks in their past and it didn't prevent them from passing an RfA. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 19:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I've also been a victim of abuse from bot accounts, my bot was calling for my death and trying to work the mob into a frenzy, 'twas terrible I tell you, but it wasn't until July 2nd when things really started getting out of hand. I tried blocking him, but he just gets around it I'm at wit's end putting up with that smartass. Penyulap 21:02, 25 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate Vandalism/Libel Targeting Pro Wrestlers

Sup Jimbo! In the Special: AbuseLog, I have found that for some reason, outside of Pop Singers, most of the Vandalism/Libel is aimed at Professional Wrestling employees. Two such statements against Kevin Nash read that he was 'the crappiest wrestler ever' and 'pure sh*ttiness'. Another statement against Paul Wight (billed as The Big Show at this time) read that Wight 'had once won the World Masturbating Championship'. One last example said that Sid Vicious 'had went to the USWA to collect a couple of STD's'. Needless to say, these unconstructive edits have already been reverted, but I just wanted to give you a heads-up. Jayemd (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you think might be the reason for this high level of vandalism? Looie496 (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I think after the Attitude Era had ended (you know, the only reason WWE exists), everybody had gotten so bored of wrestling that vandals started humiliating wrestlers 'just for kicks' and to make everybody else laugh. Jayemd (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Luckily Jimbo is aware of the problem. You can rest easy to know that there are very sophisticated artificially intelligent robots at work around the clock, you have probably seen Cluebot, and there are other robots, as well as hundreds of vigilant people using equally sophisticated tools. The number of ways that wikipedia already has in place to deal with this threat means it's not anything to worry about. It is very well taken care of just at the moment. Penyulap 06:30, 26 Jul 2012 (UTC)

"Attacking an admin is attacking the community" WOWWWW!

I have been told that "if an admin has the support of the community, then attacking the admin is attacking the community"... I'm being told it is not acceptable to prepare evidence for an AN/I or noticeboard. Unless it is for something "soon"... but when going to AN/I or a noticeboard you are told they want proof this is more than a "one time" incident and that it is "ongoing harrassment"... but I cant keep a record of the incidents because then I'm being accused of attacking the entire community! Catch 22 is still required reading in middle school right? This is why nothing can happen to (admins or regular editors) who harrass- the community requires proof and links. I have no time to go through and search every where for the exact links of when and where something happened. Half the time I cant remember which noticeboard I'm on at the time I'm writing! I was accused of "gaming the system" for wanting to have a place to keep links of everytime someone crossed the line. Gaming the system is coming to my talk page and telling me that I'm trying to game the system and that attacking an admin is attacking the entire community. It is so sad that so much is being done in the real world about bullying and online courtesy... see programs on TV constanly for instance, and I'm going to be a speaker at a local HS about bullying in August... but I come on Wikipedia and it's like it is its own little kingdom of inconsiderate bureaucracy where everyone games the system to shut up those that complain that they want common courtesy and some decorum.Camelbinky (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily true. Although I wouldn't use the term attacking, as attacking wouldn't be appropriate regardless of the target. Admins can make mistakes too and if one does do something out of line and you report them its not attacking. On the other hand if you keeping a running list on your user page of all the Admins that have done something you didn't like or were harrassing a particular one that would be wrong too. Kumioko (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
There is something ironic about your running here to try and get Jimbo to bully people into behaving the way you want them to do, Camelbinky. Premise of your post aside, they were quite correct that on-wiki hitlists are going to get deleted at MFD. The poor optics of the rest of their comment notwithstanding, it is very much true that going after any editor (admin or otherwise) who enjoys the support of the community is not going to end the way you wish. Resolute 14:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Um... AGF Resolute. Did I ever ask Jimbo to bully anyone? Did I ask him to DO anything? And once again- If someone enjoys the support of the community- Dont complain about what they do to you! LOVELY! A popular bully in school who is in sports or clubs or whatever, the administration will deal with lightly. I'm so glad that I'm at least doing my part in real life to get children AND school administrations to change that culture early on, hopefully our next generation of Wikipedia editors will be more informed and better. Aside- funny how those who have been in disputes with me in the past are the ones most vehement to oppose and yes, ATTACK me if I ever post anything. And yes Resolute your first sentence was an ATTACK on me. Ridiculus that I can now be sanctioned by admins for SAYING you attacked me, but no one will give YOU a warning for your inconsiderate words and terrible biting attitude and lack of AGF. If you wont be a part of the solution, you are a part of the problem.Camelbinky (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Um, there is a simple solution, Camelbinky - keep your list, but not on Wikipedia. If the admins can't see it, they can't complain. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
That seems a much easier solution. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Although I should say keeping a private stash of diffs on everyone who crosses you path wouldn't seem like assuming bad faith. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
But keeping a private stash of diffs on everyone you've ever been in a major dispute with might not be a terrible idea, just in case it heads to ArbCom someday. It's not an assumption of bad faith to have them just in case, it's an assumption of bad faith to expect to need them. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I can't help it if you are seeing attacks everywhere. Also, I am sorry if blunt truth offends you, but again, that is no fault of mine. I never said don't complain. Believe me, I've seen more than a couple editors start off with high support, then lose it progressively as more complaints from more editors appeared. I would add a caution, however. While what you claim you are doing to help deal with bullying in the real world is admirable, my impression of your overall attitude makes it difficult to sympathize with your position. You seem to have a major chip on your shoulder, which makes it difficult to accept at face value that you are the innocent victim that you claim to be. Resolute 15:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you are focusing on the most pertinent parts of my comment at User talk:Camelbinky#Nice comments. The "if an admin is supported by the community" assumes that there has been a community discussion about the incident, and the community supported the admin. Is there any disagreement with "The community would turn into an acid bath if we each maintained a list of people we didn't like with things we are sure are wrong."? Of course it's ok (and good) to complain about some action that is believed to be incorrect. The problem comes when an editor does not accept the results of the discussion, and when the editor attempts to carry the grudge for an extended period. I regard Wikipedia as a learning experience, both for its encyclopedic content, and for advice on how to interact with people. In real life, one encounters abrasive or unpleasant or plainly wrong people. Sometimes colleagues take their side due to some misunderstanding of the situation. Unless the issue is really really serious (and you're prepared to battle everyone regardless of the costs), it is best to just bear it in mind and move forward. There is no problem with maintaining a hitlist on a private computer, but the only purpose of maintaining it in public is to assert "I'm right and you are all wrong" which is not helpful (see my acid bath comment). Johnuniq (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I may not have completely understood your meaning of the statement, but you seem to have come to my talk page and misunderstood what I was talking to another editor about. You seem to have come to a discussion that you were not a party to and then misconstrued what I was telling someone. I never said to keep a "hitlist" of editors who have crossed me or anyone else. I said to diffs if an admin or any editor has a history of being rude and crossing the line, I in fact went out of my way to tell the other person in this personal 2 person conversation that it was not ok to just lump in any admin, it had to be admins who have shown a history and pattern of discourteous behavior.Camelbinky (talk) 00:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:UP#POLEMIC, maintaining such a list is not appropriate. My comment about the community was based on "...assumes that there has been a community discussion about the incident, and the community supported the admin...". There is a long discussion here where people on both sides express their views on the advisability of maintaining a list of perceived flaws. Johnuniq (talk) 02:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Ways...

Glad to see Jimbo's closed the thread. That sort of stuff may be the WR way, but surely not the Wikipedia way. —MistyMorn (talk) 09:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Happy Friday!

100px A Corvette For You!
It's already Friday, Jimbo! I guess Einstein's theory was correct: Time sure does take off faster than the Veyron! Jayemd (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikinews again

I just noticed this on Wikinews. I really think Wikinews has to reformat itself as something other than a news source if it isn't going to write about the news. I don't have a problem with Wikinews giving exclusive interviews and original reporting; however, it promotes itself as delivering the news. That is incorrect. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought Wikinews was a source of originally written stories on newsworthy topics. ? -- Avanu (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something terribly obvious, I don't get why that is tagged, the tag says "The validity of this article as a news story in its present form is disputed. Wikinews does not publish reports on events that are not sufficiently recent. New details must have come to light within the past 2–3 days, and the news event itself must have happened within a week." The piece was written on the day of the attack, so what exactly is the problem there? Tarc (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
It was never published. That is my bigger problem. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The published a lot about WMD's in Iraq and a plane hitting the pentagon too. Why should the big channels have a monopoly on bullshit ? Penyulap 19:56, 26 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me? Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of when it was written, it was not published on time, and so it is no longer newsworthy. More recent items could've and can still be added to it in order for it to be publishable again. Why is this being brought up here? If you have an issue with wikinews, then address it to the wikinews community.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Hilarious. Anyone who addresses an issue to the Wikinews "community" (which consists of one active admin and one active editor) will be automatically blocked and banned. Wikinews is not a "wiki" that anyone can edit. It's a closed community run by several nuts. Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Hilarious trolling. Perhaps your time would be better spent at Uncyclopedia or Dramatica?--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Unlike Viriditas, I've attempted to work with some of the wikinews community. They were friendly; however, I felt that nothing could really be done. I did a little bit of work on Wikinews but stopped for two reasons. First, the procedures are too different from outs. That is no fault on either side and isn't anything to be concerned about. The second, more important reason, was that pages would pile up at the newsroom without getting published. Everything was a mess and I didn't feel like creating articles if I didn't believe they would be published. Now the reverse is true, the articles just aren't being created. Both results leave the wikinews main page in the same place, without the most important news stories. What can we do? Wikinews cannot compete with the 24 hour news cycle. You'll never be able to get that with volunteers. That's why I feel like wikinews should shift it's focus. It should completely ignore breaking news and only focus on original reporting and interviews. That's what it is good at. Then, it should present itself in a manner that says "we do original reporting and interviews". Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe this is a silly question, but if it was "never published", how is it that I can read it? Neutron (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It is still available to give others the opportunity to fix it up so that it can be publishable. Once it becomes clear that no one is willing to do that, then it is deleted.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I think everyone knows, even good people at wikinews, that it hasn't worked. I have my own views about what should be done, but they are complex and unlikely to happen.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there some analysis of the problems somewhere? To me it seems that Wikinews is killing itself by having put quality control before growth (at least compared to Wikipedia, where quality became an important goal only after critical mass was reached). I have not been observing very closely, though, and might be completely wrong. —Kusma (t·c) 07:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a decent first step would be to get rid of pending changes. Every page on Wikinews uses pending changes. Requiring the very few active members of the project to review every change that happens is part of the quality control before growth. It limits the ability for content creation and discourages new editors. I don't feel it is entirely necessary. In addition, Wikinews is lacking certain guidelines that I feel are essential to a functional site. See this quote

No, we don't have AGF. And reviewers can't take author's word for what's in the sources. It's not just a matter of faith/intentions/honesty/the like, though that comes into it too; anyone can make mistakes, and one of the reviewer's functions is catching authors' mistakes. Also, independent review is at the heart of our reputation (a key project asset) — and it wouldn't be independent if the reviewer simply took the authors' word for it (no matter who the authors) --Pi zero (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That said, sources like the Wall Street Journal are oftentimes excluded because Wikinews does not accept pay-per-view sources. I understand the need for a bureaucratic newsroom policy where pages get checked prior to publishing (since everything appears on the main page); however, the pages should be checked for accuracy and little else at this time. As I've stated, the alternate solution is to reformat Wikinews to solely focus on interviews. I've also looked at the german version. I feel that it is structured in a much better way than the English version and the various portals at the top make it seem like a real newssite. Perhaps Wikinews could try to follow that example. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

@ Ryan Vesey, Welcome to Wikinews. :D I look forward to your contributions on the project. We love new users and could use your assistance with our Paralympic coverage. :) --LauraHale (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedians to the Paralympics

As a complete random aside, if Jimbo Wales isn't aware of it, Wikimedia will have two reporters are the 2012 Summer Paralympics covering the Games for both Wikipedia and Wikinews. As Wikipedia doesn't allow original reporting, Wikinews is central to the success of getting Wikimedians greater access to major sporting events like the Paralympics, Olympics and Commonwealth Games. :) We did a test run of some technology on Wikinews this weekend to see how our reporting would work when we would push a large number of OR stories out in a short time span. Despite some hiccups, we managed to get ten stories published:

This was pretty fantastic. On top of that, we probably took 5,000 pictures and have started uploading them to:

These pictures can be used on articles about Paralympians. It would be nice to see some of them taken to DYK, especially for the Chinese, Germans and Japanese as we do not see many people with disabilities or these countries featured on Wikipedia's front page.

In any case, to my knowledge, this is the first time Wikimedians have had press access to a sporting event on this scale and Wikinews will be key to the success to trying to gain access for more Wikimedians in the future. If we can have Jimmy's support for this, it would go a long way towards getting additional community support and assist in our efforts to get Wikimedians to the 2016 Summer Olympics. --LauraHale (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

That seems awesome Laura! Thanks for sharing that. I don't find it too random either, it shows where Wikinews can continue to focus. Wikinews does seem good at that. My main argument is that the sight should be reformatted to outwardly reflect its focus. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
It is incredibly awesome. And your argument appears to be this: You, Ryan Vesey, will come over to Wikinews, become involved in our systems and assist in realising what you desire. :) Because Jimmy can't directly involve himself in project politics like you're suggesting: The community tends to have tremendous pushback when outsides come in and try to artificially impose policy on other projects. :) But you, Ryan Vesey, you can come in, become a regular contributor, understand how things work, get a few articles published, and then help realise those changes and make Wikinews more awesome and present more opportunities for yourself and other Wikimedians with your news coverage! :) --LauraHale (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Jimmy, we're having a Wikinews workshop ahead of the Paralympics and would love it if you were in London and could attend. :) --LauraHale (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

New Fcite templates allow more parameters

During the Fcite TfD discussions, several users requested more options to be allowed in the 5x-faster Fcite templates ({{Fcite_web}}, {{Fcite_book}}, {{Fcite_journal}}, etc.). To help gain consensus, I added most of the standard parameters to those templates. However, there was a growing trend that "all" parameters should be allowed, so that the prior templates could be deprecated and replaced, which is not the intended goal. Instead, the Fcite templates are intended to be used where performance specifically has been an issue, rather than as a rival template system which must be proven to handle all current 1.6 million articles which use the older Template:Citation/core.

Performance improvements: The Fcite templates improve the following noted issues in prior performance problems with the {Cite_*} template family:

  • The edit-preview speed is 3x faster, as the 5x-faster Fcite templates improve overall speed.
  • The display speed is 3x faster for users with Special:Preferences, such as thumbnail higher/lower than 220px.
  • More large templates are allowed, as over 3,500 Fcite templates could be used, without exceeding the NewPP preprocessor "post-expand include size".
  • Slow, busy servers still display articles, without the 60-second timeout as wp:Wikimedia Foundation error.

Although the initial performance concern was about the reformat or edit-preview speed, by worrying about performance, then other performance improvements were noted. Especially critical is avoiding the 60-second timeout during edit-preview, which often loses the entire edit, due to most users not saving the edit-buffer before edit-preview. A long, detailed edit (to a whole major article) could be lost, at times when some busy servers run 2x slower, upon "Wikimedia Foundation error" which fails to recover the edit-buffer, and the browser-back button would return to the original edit-buffer, losing all changes made before edit-preview.

Although the discussions about the Fcite templates have been tenuous at times, several editors have helped, greatly, by naming specific examples where improvements were later implemented. Hence, even though some people might have been feeling apprehensive, or nervous, about the Fcite templates, the general collaboration has produced a set of highly functional templates which currently still run 5x-6x faster, with the potential to use a streamlined Fcite as 15x faster, processing 250 typical cites per second (rather than 17). Again, I thank everyone who replied here, at the wp:TfD, and at wp:PUMPTECH to help make all this possible, beyond just a set of simplistic hollow templates, into fully functional templates which support professional citation styles at extremely fast speeds. Since performance is the main issue, it made sense for the Fcite templates to quickly allow more options to provide the highest-quality output, for even complex citations in featured articles. If performance had been a higher priority 3 years ago, perhaps the results would have come sooner, but at least, now, we can see how performance can be extensively improved, once it is considered important. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:05/19:14, 27 July, revised 09:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no "growing trend" that "the prior templates be deprecated and replaced." You made that up. The appropriate course of action is to offer the techniques used as possible enhancements to the standard templates. Introducing yet another suite of templates is disruptive in that it adds to the chaos already extant in articles; the appropriate approach is to reduce the trivial variations of cite templates, not expand them. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

An appeal for genuine neutrality at James Eagan Holmes and 2012 Aurora shooting

Pardon me for posting here, as I've never done so before. I wanted to give some visibility to a new section I've posted at Talk:James_Eagan_Holmes#An_appeal_for_genuine_neutrality. Respectfully, and with my thanks. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Two Community Fellowship proposals you might be interested in

Hi! there are currently two Community Fellowship proposal for projects that would be geared towards engaging both new and active editors.

Feedback on either proposal would be very much appreciated. I should note that the feedback is for the proposal, not the proposer, and even if the Fellowships go forward it might be undertaken by presently not-mentioned editors. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 16:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)