User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 145

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Apology in full

I am the individual who posted here formerly as Irate (talk · contribs) and Son of Paddy's Ego (talk · contribs). I am now going to edit for the good, I was a bloody fool when I posted here and apologise for the now-notorious Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irate and my previous behaviour in 2005, but I have changed. I appeal to be unbanned; I am no JarlaxleArtemis or Betacommand, and am now civil, and I was stupid on here. --Canadacrox (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

If you're genuinely contrite, you can probably be unbanned. You'll need to appeal your ban to those who made it (probably ArbCom or its ban appeals subcommittee). Jimbo can't/won't act here. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Editors who are genuinely contrite don't engage in vandalism immediately after a "full apology". Looie496 (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Please STOP those few catalan secessionists, and please STOP the seize of information in catalan language and catalan territories articles.

IT IS SERIOUS. Please somebody do something

Giant block of ranting #1

is unbelievable have to get here to make a call to common sense

The 17 Autonomous communities of Spain, including the boundaries of their constituent provinces. Spain is a sovereign state and a member state of the European Union

what if

Jimbo, what if one day a certain amount of wikipedians reach a "consensus" and change the name of USA by the name "Zoltan Sovereign Republic" and seize the article?
what if a foreign terrorist organization (like in example, terra lliure) was deliberately changing wikipedia articles to create a war?
what if that same strange terrorist association was content not only to separate their territories, they would invade your home and region?
what if the governor of a little region (Catalonia) wants to invade ALL Catalan Speaking regions (Valencian Community, Balearic Islands, Algher, Cartxe, etc...) paying government money for "wikipedia", "culture" and "WIKIvolunteers in PUBLIC Libraries" but is ALL for "indoctrinate the children" like government does in schools?? (source: VIDEO OF INDOCTRINATION IN SCHOOLS "WE THE CATALANS ARE BETTER THAN THEY, SPAIN AND EUROPE ARE STEALING OUR MONEY, HATE HATE HATE")??

SCARY it isn't?

SO, WHY AN ORGANIZATED SECESSIONISTS GROUP OF CATALONIA WANT TO SEIZE AND TO INVADE THE VALENCIAN COMMUNITY IN WIKIMEDIA? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Land_of_Valencia

Català: el País Valencià és un país o regió d'Europa <-----<WHAT? "Valencian State" or "Valencian Country" "country of EUROPE"? WTF?
English: the Land of Valencia is an autonomous community of Spain <-----<WHAT? "Land of Valencia"? WTF?
Esperanto: Valencilando estas aŭtonoma komunumo de Hispanio
Español: la Comunidad Valenciana es una autonomia de España
Latina: Communitas Valentiana est autonoma Hispaniae communitas
Simple English: Valencia is a Spanish autonomous community, in the east of the Kingdom
Aragonés: o País Balenzian ye una comunidat autonoma d'España
Asturianu: la Comunidá Valenciana ye una comunidá autónoma na costa mediterránea d'España
Bahasa Indonesia: Negeri Valencia atau Wilayah Valencia adalah sebuah wilayah otonomi Spanyol di sebelah timur Spanyol
Bahasa Melayu: Komuniti Valencia merupakan sebuah komuniti berautonomi (wilayah) di bahagian Barat Sepanyol
Bân-lâm-gú: València Chū-chú Siā-lí sī Se-pan-gâ tang-pō· ê 1 ê chū-chú siā-lí. Hú-siâⁿ siat tī Valencia Chhī — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.9.217.223 (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Euskara: Valentziako Erkidegoa Espainiako estatuko autonomia erkidego bat da, Iberiar Penintsularen ekialdean kokatzen dena
Français : la Communauté valencienne est l'une des dix-sept communautés autonomes d'Espagne >>>>>THE BEST<<<< the Valencian Community is one of the seventeen autonomous communities of Spain
Frysk: De Autonome regio Valencia is ien fan de 17 Spaanske regio's
Gaeilge: Is Comhphobal féinrialaitheach í an Comhphobal Valencia in oirthear na Spáinne
Gaelg: She cohionnal seyr ny Spaainey eh yn Çheer Valencianagh
Galego: a Comunidade Valenciana ou o País Valenciano é un país ou rexión de Europa situada ao Leste da Península Ibérica <--<WHAT? "Country of Europe"? WTF?
Hrvatski: Valencijska Zajednica je španjolska autonomna zajednica smještena na istoku Pirenejskog poluotoka, na obali Sredozemnog mora
Italiano: la Comunità Valenziana, è una comunità autonoma della Spagna orientale
Kernowek: Pow Valensianek yw kemmynieth omrewl yn Spayn est
Ladino: La Komunidad Valensiana es una komuninad otonoma de Espanya
Lëtzebuergesch: Valencia ass eng Regioun an eng autonom Gemeinschaft a Spuenien
Lietuvių: Valensijos regionas viena iš 17 Ispanijos autonominių bendruomenių
Magyar: Valencia autonóm közösség egy autonóm közösség Spanyolország keleti részén
Nāhuatl: Tlācaxoxōuhqui Cemāxcāyōtl Valencia in ompa Caxtillān, īāltepēnānyō Valencia
Nederlands: Valencia is één van de 17 autonome regio's van Spanje

etc...

Categories: Autonomous communities of Spain - Territories of the Catalan Countries Catalan Countries<--< WTF? I SPEAK CATALAN, I WAS BORN IN VALENCIA, so I'm Spanish. SOO... WHAT THE h ARE "the Catalan Countries"? (I understand "the Catalan Speaking Regions of Spain", not those invents to ban Spain from Wikipedia)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.9.217.223 (talk) 11:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Really I'm scared.

sources

My birthplace is VALENCIAN COMMUNITY

¿Who writes "the state of valencia" or "land of valencia" or "valencia country" or other nonsenses?¿? where they belong?
(source: "Valencia Country is a country located in Europe and the Mediterranean to the east of the Iberian Peninsula." with sources like secessionist secondary schools, secessionist books and secessionist blogs ONLY, in the secessionist and seized ca.wikipedia.org)

The Spanish Constitution, and the regional Statute of Autonomy of Valencian Community voted in referendum by the people of Valencian Community says that the ONLY and OFFICIAL name of this region of SPAIN is:

COMUNIDAD VALENCIANA (in Spanish language)
COMUNITAT VALENCIANA (in Catalan language)

in English language, it can be translated by VALENCIAN COMMUNITY

¿sources?

SPANISH CONSTITUTION (POWERED BY A FULL DEMOCRACY CONGRESS SINCE 1978)

"CHAPTER 3

* Self-governing Communities

* Section 147

1. Within the terms of the present Constitution, Statutes of Autonomy shall be the basic institutional rule of each Self-governing Community and the State shall recognize and protect them as an integral part of its legal system.

2. The Statutes of Autonomy must contain:

a) The name of the Community which best corresponds to its historic identity"

...

SO... ¿what does it say the regional Statute of Autonomy of Comunitat Valenciana - Valencian Community ?¿? ...

- go to Spanish Congress web page of Spanish Constitution
- go to "Estatutos de Autonomía" (Autonomous regional Statutes)
- go to "Comunitat Valenciana" :-P

...

STATUTE OF AUTONOMY OF VALENCIAN COMMUNITY (in spanish, online Congress webpage) (POWERED BY FULL DEMOCRACY 17 AUTONOMIES OR REGIONS WITHIN THE UNITY OF SPANISH NATION SINCE 1978)
pdf downloads (regional Congress): SPANISH, CATALAN, ENGLISH, DEUTSCH, FRANÇAISE, ITALIANO.

"The Valencian People, historically organized as the Kingdom of Valencia, constitutes Autonomous Community within the unity of the Spanish nation as an expression of their distinct identity as a historical nationality and the right of self-government that the Spanish Constitution recognizes every nationality, under the name of VALENCIAN COMMUNITY".

SO... the official and widely accepted and recognised by valencian people, Regional Statutes, Spanish Constitution, spanish people, european people, United Nations, and whole Universe is VALENCIAN COMMUNITY. Please, Stop secessionists and terrorists invents.

Please, something stinks in that huge amount of seized and closed articles. Please be enciclopaedic and free Wikipedia in Catalan language to ALL catalan speaking territories, not only for the little secessionist Region of the North of Catalonia.

Please, ask them to make their own nationalist wiki, but please free our catalan one FOR ALL catalan speaking people.
"‎Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing." Edmund Burke
We would be very thankful for someone to do something to prevent these thousands of articles with exclusion and prejudice, sometimes hilarious, sometimes causing fear and memories of other times of a nightmare... Thank you very much for your time to read this.

TL;DR summary

If anyone is actually trying to make sense of this, see Names of the Valencian Community for an explanation of why Wikipedia uses both the official "Community of Valencia" and the unofficial "Land of Valencia". Basically, although "Community" is the official form, "Pais" (Land) is widely used, including by the official tourism bodies for the region and the Partit Socialista del País Valencià (the Valencian wing of the PSOE, Spain's governing party until late 2011), so "Land of Valencia" tends to crop up a lot in sources. The very first sentence of the Valencian Statute of Autonomy makes reference to the "Land of Valencia" name. Mogism (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I have put both of the huge slabs of incoherent text above and below (sprayed with SHOUTY BOLD WORDS) into collapsed boxes as they were interfering with being able to read this talk page in a normal fashion. To the anonymous editor: this is not the place. — Scott • talk 19:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Giant block of ranting #2

WP:REF, NO:CABAL and ALL YOU SAY IS FALSE

Hello, "Mogism", WP:REF, NO:CABAL and ALL YOU SAY IS FALSE (while I insist you read the Constitution and Statutes) I will try to explain:

* Mogism said above: "Basically, although "Community" is the official form, "Pais" (Land) is widely used" (you say that)

FALSE, Only secessionist people and minority secessionist parties are using "Valencian Country" or "Valencian State" or similar invents... Vast majority of people of Valencian Community respect the law, lets see in a Random search:

* Official Tourism Webpage, you say? http://www.comunitatvalenciana.com/ "Portal Oficial de Turismo de la Comunitat Valenciana" (Official Tourism Site of the Region of Valencia)

* Yes, socialists are nationalists in name of party but first thing I see in their webpage http://www.socialistesvalencians.org is the news "(05/10/2013) El secretari general del PSPV replica al PP que el debat del finançament és inajornable “i no anem a deixar que se li passe l'arròs a la Comunitat Valenciana”, al mateix temps que anuncia una proposta..." in the same front webpage!

* Municipal Transport Company of City of Valencia http://www.emtvalencia.es/ciudadano/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=136&itemi__=&Itemid=&lang=en

"Languages: Two official languages exist in Valencia: Valencian, the local language for the Valencian Community, and Castilian, the official language of the country. The Constitution (1978) and the State Autonomy of the Valencian Community are the two legal texts that recognise Valencian and Castilian as the co-official languages for the region.
The coexistence of both languages demonstrates a city that is devoted to respect and protection of different linguistic features; a cultural Heritage for all citizens."

* Another webpages that says "COMUNITAT VALENCIANA" ("VALENCIAN COMMUNITY"):

Conservatives http://ppcv.com (Partit Popular de la Comunitat Valenciana) -NOTE: I'M NOT CONSERVATIVE-,
Síndic de Greuges de la Comunitat Valenciana http://www.elsindic.com/es/index.html (Defender of the People - where people can complain about unfair administration)
Do you like MotoGP? Valencian Community motorcycle Grand Prix source: http://www.circuitvalencia.com/ CSI-F Comunitat Valenciana (The labor union of Aministration workers) http://www.csi-f.es/ambito/comunidad-valenciana/ Searching a hostel for young travellers? "ALBERGUES DE LA COMUNITAT VALENCIANA" http://www.gvajove.es/ivaj/opencms/IVAJ/es/tiempo/instalaciones_GvaJove/Albergues_Comunitat_Valenciana

STOP TO BREATHE (to proceed with a journey rhythm recommend to listen Ocean Colour Scene - Travellers Tune)

Do you like Rural tourism? http://www.interiorcomunitatvalenciana.com/ Inland tourism confederation of COMUNITAT VALENCIANA
EMERGENCY? Don't worry, here is http://www.112cv.com/ilive/ 112 COMUNITAT VALENCIANA (police, firefighters, medical assistance, etc.)
MEDIA? http://www.europapress.es/comunitat-valenciana/ news agency, section COMUNITAT VALENCIANA, http://www.larazon.es/local/comunidad-valenciana larazón.es newspaper section COMUNITAT VALENCIANA, http://www.lasprovincias.es/comunitatvalenciana/ another newspaper with "COMUNITAT VALENCIANA", http://www.rtve.es/alacarta/videos/linformatiu-comunitat-valenciana/ (PUBLIC NATIONAL TV Section Comunitat Valenciana), http://www.rtvv.es/va/ (Regional PUBLIC TV) ETC...
SEARCH A JOB? https://ec.europa.eu/eures/main.jsp?catId=448&acro=lmi&lang=es&countryId=ES&regionId=ES5&nuts2Code=ES52&nuts3Code=null&regionName=Comunidad%20Valenciana EURES (EUROPEAN UNION webpage, unemployment data :-( of Comunitat Valenciana

HUMANITARIAN AID and Civil Protection? Spain - Disaster management structure Vademecum: http://ec.europa.eu/echo/civil_protection/civil/vademecum/es/2-es-1.html "Spain has 17 autonomous communities and 2 autonomous cities; Andalusia, Aragon, Asturias, Balearic Islands, Ceuta*, Canary Islands, Cantabria, Castilla-La Mancha, Castilla y Leon, Catalonia, Valencian Community, Extremadura, Galicia, La Rioja, Madrid, Melilla*, Murcia, Navarra and Pais Vasco".

Do you know that? When you follow all Google famous, recogniced and well known results of "VALENCIAN COMMUNITY"...
ANYONE CAN FALL INTO CIA (CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY) WEBPAGE, haha hah haha..: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/print/country/countrypdf_sp.pdf#page=5
SPAIN GUIDE FOR AMERICAN SPIES (hehe XD): Government type: parliamentary monarchy Capital: name: Madrid geographic coordinates: 40 24 N, 3 41 W time difference: UTC+1 (6 hours ahead of Washington, DC during Standard Time) daylight saving time: +1hr, begins last Sunday in March; ends last Sunday in October note: Spain is divided into two time zones including the Canary Islands Administrative divisions: 17 autonomous communities (comunidades autonomas, singular - comunidad autonoma) and 2 autonomous cities* (ciudades autonomas, singular - ciudad autonoma); Andalucia, Aragon, Asturias, Baleares (Balearic Islands), Ceuta*, Canarias (Canary Islands), Cantabria, Castilla-La Mancha, Castilla y Leon, Cataluna (Catalonia), Comunidad Valenciana (Valencian Community), Extremadura, Galicia, La Rioja, Madrid, Melilla*, Murcia, Navarra, Pais Vasco (Basque Country)

* Mogism said above: "Land of Valencia tends to crop up a lot in sources"

FALSE, is the first time I hear that in my life.

"The very first sentence of the Valencian Statute of Autonomy makes reference to the "Land of Valencia" name".

VERY VERY FALSE, The very first sentence IS in the cover of the book (in PANTONE RED, I think): "STATUTE OF AUTONOMY
OF THE VALENCIAN COMMUNITY"
Valencian Courts

Then, a white page, and the very second sentence is "STATUTE OF AUTONOMY OF THE VALENCIAN COMMUNITY"

then presentations, etc..

If you can see your longed "Land of Valencia" go to page 11: "PREAMBLE The Valencian Community resulted from the manifest will for autonomy shown by the people of the Valencian provinces, after the pre-autonomous period, which began thanks to the Royal Decree Law 10/1978, which created the Consell del País Valencià (Council of the Land of Valencia)".

JIMBO would be wondering: what the heck is Consell del País Valencià (Council of the Land of Valencia)??
Well, Assasin Dictator Franco dies in 1975, so SPAIN needed to walk into DEMOCRACY. The "Council of the Land of Valencia" was a TEMPORARY preautonomic institution of the Valencian Community approved by royal decree of March 17, 1978 negotiated by the Plenary of Parliamentarians of Valencia with the government of Adolfo Suarez, who was to lead the Valencian towards autonomy. The first president Josep Lluís Albiñana Olmos, PSPV.

SO FINALLY WHAT SAYS VALENCIAN COMMUNITY STATUTE THAT VOTED THE PEOPLE IN REFERENDUM IN 1978??:
TITLE I The Valencian Community

Article one

1. The Valencian People, historically organised as the Kingdom of Valencia, is constituted as an

Autonomous Community, within the unity of the Spanish nation, as an expression of its distinct identity as an historical nationality and exercising the right to self-government that the Spanish Constitution recognises for any nationality, with the name of the Valencian Community.

YES, "Mogism". I AM RIGHT.
AND YOU DO NOT.

AND THE NAME OF THIS REGION IS "COMUNITAT VALENCIANA" (VALENCIAN COMMUNITY) BECAUSE WE, THE PEOPLE HAVE VOTED THIS REGIONAL STATUTES AND SPANISH CONSTITUTION IN REFERENDUM IN 1978 TO LIVE IN FREEDOM, LIBERTY AND PEACE. And four or three paid secessionists wikipedians cannot change this FACT.

PD: October the 9 (tomorrow) is the Official Day of Valencian Community PARTY PEOPLE! (despite the hard work remains to reset all the flags of Spain that have been banned in ca.wikipedia.org)

RfAs & Jimbo

Hello, Jimbo. After reading all of the RfA discussion above, and the previous discussions, I have a suggestion. It has absolutely nothing to do with the process, but it is related. I thought it might be a good idea if you congratulated any newly promoted admin on their talk page, personally letting them know their efforts really are appreciated. Just a thought. Have a good day! Rgrds. --64.85.214.28 (talk) 12:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a fine idea and something I will consider. I'm reluctant to commit to it, because I'm already way behind on various Wikipedia chores and time isn't getting any freer for me! But in principle, it sounds like a good thing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Being asked to change my password as Wikipedia information has been accessed!

I just opened my email today and found this from the WM Foundation:

On October 1, 2013, we learned about an implementation error that made
private user information (specifically, user email addresses, password hashes, session tokens, and last login timestamp) for approximately 37,000 Wikimedia project users accessible to volunteers with access to the Wikimedia "LabsDB" infrastructure.
Your user account is one of the ones which was affected.

Uhm...what?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

There was a problem. They fixed it. They told you. They told other folk who were affected, too. Move right along, folks, nothing to see here. Fiddle Faddle 23:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

That is not the answer to any type of question and this is serious enough that your reply was actually very insulting and NOT at all satisfying....stop right there. What happened and why?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mark. Scroll down to the "In brief" section here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-10-02/News_and_notes.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See meta:October 2013 private data security issue. Mogism (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you to the last two replies. All I ask for is information. I have been around long enough to expect a clear answer to real issues. Thanks to those that respected that!--Mark Miller (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Big time thank you to Brianann MacAmhlaidh Yes..."According to staffer Marc-André Pelletier, in the future, the Wikimedia Foundation will add a layer of redundancy to the checks to prevent this from happening again."..was exactly what I was wondering!--Mark Miller (talk) 23:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Ads only for unregistered users

Now here's an idea i was pondering over today. To put it bluntly, if we made it so ads only appeared to unregistered users, it would encourage people to get an account while also give wikipedia it's revenue. Is this idea something worth pursuing? Please discuss below. :)--Coin945 (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

No, please don't discuss below, as an individual user's talkpage isn't the place for it. First read Wikipedia:Funding Wikipedia through advertisements, and if that doesn't answer your questions then discuss it here. Mogism (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow, Mogism ... that statement is a bit against Jimbo's "Open Door Policy", isn't it? A little bit bitey too ES &L 15:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

In general I agree, Mogism. I really like this to be a place where we can consider broad philosophical questions. But in this particular case, I think this counts as a 'perennial proposal' that isn't like to make much headway. I'm opposed to this sort of thing, and I'm not particularly interested in a new discussion of it right now. At the same time, I think and have always said that our refusal to accept advertising has to always be made fresh and argued for - the amount of money that we are turning down is substantial, and we have to have a good reason for doing it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of your policy regarding advertising on Wikipedia, Jimbo. I just thought this was a unique way of tackling the issue that had the potential to please everybody. Not a case of rehashing the same old discussion.--Coin945 (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, it's all good. Not a discussion I want to have at this moment, but there's nothing wrong with considering the topic thoughtfully.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing numbers down in August

I noticed this morning that the August 2013 editing numbers are now posted. After roughly a two year plateau in editor participation, things seem to have taken a big dive in August 2013. Total edits for August fell from to about 2.9 million from the 3.5 million of the previous August (more or less a 15% drop, rounding things off), while the number of Very Active Wikipedians (100+ edits in the month), fell by 8.3%. Not good. Carrite (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

In trying to figure this out I popped over to VisualEditor, which notes: "The beta [of VE] became the default editor for users logged-into the English-language Wikipedia in July 2013." Small sample size, sure, but this strikes me as potentially connected. Carrite (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

~~What are the year-on-year numbers like? - David Gerard (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)~~ Sorry, evidently I can't read today - David Gerard (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It appears there was a comparable drop in July over previous-year numbers, which I didn't notice. VE would seem to be the culprit. Carrite (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

August 2012 was a blip, the months either side are consistent with August 2013.

I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to say. Aug. 2012 was consistent with the general trend (flat level of participation) for the last two years or so. Now suddenly things are taking a significant dive. Carrite (talk) 03:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm no fan of this implementation of VE, I was one of the testers who said it wasn't ready. It isn't written to work properly on any but the newest PCs. Of course if you slow down people's editing you can expect some loss of edits even if those editors are putting the same amount of time into the project.

But there are at least two other variables in play here. Firstly the move of the intrawiki links to Wikidata has lost us a whole load of edits, mostly bot edits. Last year when another Wikipedia created an article on a major subject like Barack Obama or the Sun then as soon as one intrawiki link was created the bots would add further ones to hundreds more wikis, now a new version merely needs adding to wikidata. So our year on year 2012/2013 drop of all edits including bot edits is going to be at least partially cosmetic.

Secondly we need to remember that while there appears to be a sharp fall from 2007 to 2009 and a gentle fall in editing levels since 2009, the rise of the edit filters since 2009 means that the true level of editing from 2009 to 2012 probably rose. If the edit filters had instead been coded as extra logic traps in Cluebot and similar anti vandal bots then we would have an awful lot more vandalism and near instantaneous bot reversion of that same vandalism (not that I want to criticise the edit filters, but we should be aware of their effect on edit count). Ϣere SpielChequers 21:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Chequers, it sounds like you are saying we have cooked our own books, by accident, as it were. How can one access statistics that are correct? Is there a way to analyze the 2009-thru-2012 datasets on an apples to apples basis, by retroactively 'cooking' the 2009 records so as to be comparable to the more recent ones, where more advanced bots were actually in place? I guess my question is this: how many *real* edits by *real* editors happened in 2009 thru present? That seems to be the key data-point. Ideally, we want editors to spend their time improving the encyclopedia by writing content, polishing content, uploading images, and so on... while bot sustain the encyclopedia by autoreverting spam, autoreverting vandalism, and in general keeping the human editors from needing to mess with such things. Is there any way to measure what I want to know? If not, can we figure out a way to start getting such metrics, going forwards, so the discussion of the impact of the 2014 visual editor does not sound so fuzzy and confounding? Insert obligatory Mark Twain quote here. Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Many languages fell in June before VE

There were unusual drops 5%-9%, beginning in June (before VisualEditor), for many languages; see counts of 5+ edits (TablesWikipediansEditsGt5.htm). Drops occurred in many other-language wikipedias, including:

French (fr), Portuguese (pt), Spanish (es), Dutch (nl), Turkish (tr), German (de), Japanese (jp), Russian (ru), and Swedish (sv), plus others.

Then after June, some languages stabilized at the lower level, such as English showing levels for 5+ edits during June-August as 30901, 30891, 30941, being almost unchanged for 31-day months. Hence, the evidence clearly refutes any changes due exclusively to VE usage, as no significant changes in English edits, and German WP did not offer VE sitewide. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

That's interesting. So what happened in June? Looking at Very Active Wikipedians (100+) compared to year-before numbers (to eliminate normal seasonal fluctuation), it appears the significant downshift started in July, not June. I suppose some stats dude could run some t-tests or something to figure out whether the June change was significant or not, but just eyeballing things, it does look like the shift came in July. Certainly I think we can all agree that the first two months of VE did not bring the desired influx of editors, but rather have been very poor months for editing indeed. Carrite (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

See June and other months in table below: The drops in June for high-activity editors (100+ edits per month) were not always similar to the drops of 5+ edit levels, such as Swedish Wikipedia even rising higher in June while many other language levels dropped. Compared to prior years, the levels in July or August did not rise back as much after the June 2013 drop. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

High editor activity in 15 languages

The following table (extracted from TablesWikipediansEditsGt100.htm) shows the recent high editor-activity levels (for 100+ edits) in 15 languages (es=Spanish, ja=Japanese, ru=Russia, de=German, pt=Portuguese, it=Italian, pl=Polish, zh=Chinese, nl=Dutch, tr=Turkish, ar=Arabic, sv=Swedish, id=Bahasa Indonesia, etc).

Editor counts with 100+ edits per month
Month	Σ	en	es	ja	ru	de	fr	pt	it	pl	zh	nl	tr	ar	sv	id
Aug 2013	-2% 9923	-0% 3156	-5% 499	+5% 317	-7% 558	-1% 944	+2% 748	-7% 191	-9% 395	0% 237	-3% 286	+1% 225	-7% 64	+6% 109	+12% 114	-18% 42
Jul 2013	-1% 10101	-2% 3157	-0% 524	-5% 302	-6% 597	-2% 955	-1% 734	+9% 206	+6% 434	-2% 236	+8% 295	-5% 223	+15% 69	+24% 103	-15% 102	+2% 51
Jun 2013	-4% 10198	-3% 3227	-9% 525	-7% 319	-3% 634	-1% 975	-6% 741	-14% 189	-7% 409	-2% 240	-7% 274	-5% 235	-2% 60	-7% 83	+5% 120	+9% 50
May 2013	+2% 10569	+1% 3318	+9% 576	-1% 343	+2% 652	-0% 985	+2% 789	+10% 219	+3% 441	+3% 244	+10% 295	+10% 247	+13% 61	-10% 89	-7% 114	+35% 46

The editor-activity levels for many languages dropped very sharply in June 2013 (compared to prior years), which might indicate many student editors leaving on school breaks in June, or perhaps some other major change which occurred during June 2013. Note the levels in July or August did not always rise back after the June drop, where prior years had a large rebound in July+August. Perhaps all the distractions from the VisualEditor and forced https-protocol interface drove away thousands of typical editors. Meanwhile the Arabic Wikipedia ("ar") had large increases in July and August, up 24%-30% over June's level of 83 editors (with 100+ edits), which had been typical of the prior year. Anyway, because the high-activity editors (even at 25+ edits per month) are associated with "fixing Wikpedia" then the June drop and low rebound in July+August is a significant 3-month danger sign. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Wikid77, A small part of the problem in comparing Aug 2012 with Aug 2013 is the awkward business of a calender that splits a 52 week year into 12 months. So Aug 2012 had 5 Wednesdays and 4 Saturdays whilst Aug 2013 was the reverse, now I don't know whether very active users tend to be more active on Weds than Sat, but I do know that editing patterns fluctuate by day of the week. Of course the logical solution to that is to create a thirteenth month, and rest assured I will do that when my plans for world domination come to fruition.

A big and unambiguous reason for a drop between 2012 and 2013 is that Wikipedia has lost, or rather partially lost, some editors to Wikidata, and while the total number of editors who've shifted may be small, I am pretty sure they are skewed towards people who do lots of small edits.

It wouldn't surprise me if V/E had also contributed to the decline, but I wouldn't claim these stats as proof of that. Ϣere SpielChequers 23:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm a little shocked, Wikid77. Are these numbers 10,000s? Or 1,000s? Because there have to be more people than that who are active Editors. The numbers seem awfully low. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The counts are usernames with article-page edits (excluding template updates, talk-page posts, etc.). However, there were 9,008 usernames in August 2013 who made 25+ edits (including the 3,156 with 100+ edits), and so I tend to think of the English WP article-editor core group as now ~9,500 usernames, being about 6,000 more people than the 3,156 very active editors. Plus 27% of all edits are made by IP editors, so multiply totals by 1.37 as 1/(1-27%), for 9,500×1.37 = ~13,000 total people in the core group (double-counting IPs or alias usernames who also login). Hence, those numbers are more like 10,000 people each updating many articles every month. For the occasional editors, there were 30,941 usernames who made 5+ edits per month, and among those people, 18,069 usernames (over half) made 10+ article edits. The major reason for the relatively low "3,156" editors with 100+ edits seems to be the distraction of writing talk-page edits which tend to keep many experienced editors below 99 article edits each month. Meanwhile, thousands of articles wait months/years to be corrected for wording or footnotes. Editors far above 100+ edits often make many simple reverts of numerous hack edits, not adding new text as much. Overall, a relative handful of people are writing/fixing Wikipedia, while perhaps 25,000-50,000 people view a page before one person updates the text. Plus we have trouble where the few editors are allowing questionable edits to pass too quickly. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow. 3,156 very active Editors and over 4 million pages (or 10,000 active Editors). Retaining very active Editors (and the workload they shoulder) seems like a bigger problem than a few Editors who allow questionable edits to pass. I'm not sure where you'd even find data on the latter issue. How do you measure "misjudgments", especially when most go unnoticed? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

@Wikid. The pool of very active editors is small enough that it could be databased. One could build a list of let's say 5000 names or whatever and on a database chart how many are content writers, how many are style gnomes, date of registration, date they first became "very active," and so forth. Over my head although I do want to suggest the idea to you since you're the supremo of macro-analysis of editing trends... Carrite (talk) 03:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Done, or at least started as wp:TOP5000: I have created a new shortcut as wp:TOP5000 to "WP:List of Wikipedians by number of edits" with the top 5,000 active editors, where the redirect could be expanded as a full essay to better describe the editor-activity levels of the top 5,000 or 10,000 editors. I think there is a pie chart which shows the top 10,000 editors have made 36% of all article edits (as of November 2012):

File:Top_Wikipedians_compared_to_the_rest_of_the_community,_November_2012.svg

However, many of those 36% (of all edits) are likely correcting major problems in the other 64% of edits made by other users. I guess the best news, about all these editor statistics, is that readable articles actually get written in the process! -Wikid77 (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a non-trivial problem. Many perhaps most of the 5,000 editors with the highest edit count are likely to have diverse editing habits, I can think of two FA writers in that group, one who also has an awful lot of categorisation edits, another spends a lot of time on AWB. Any analysis of those 5,000 would need to work out the proportion of their edits that were of various types. Then there is the issue that you are not likely to have access to their deleted edits, and that a few of those editors have opted out of being analysed. But most importantly, the 5,000 accounts with the highest ever edit counts are not going to fully overlap with the currently most active 3,156. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Catalan Wikipedia

Artur Mas (secessionist local governor of Catalonia) subsidizes the "Viquipèdia" defining Catalonia as an "European country" ? ¿? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.9.217.223 (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Please stop pushing your opinions all around the page. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 16:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Best to keep it to one section, and also to tone down the drama. My ears are open but I'm so far unpersuaded by the complainant's views. We'll need more substantive examples of bias before I'm even going to bother to go over to talk to the Catalan Wikipedians about it. I was concerned initially when I heard about the flag issue, or about the 'pais' issue, but both have been answered more or less to my satisfaction. (That is to say, I might vote differently if we were voting, but the choices made appear to be within the realm of the reasonable given the state of the sources.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, "Konveyor Belt", I thought the "Paid editing blowup" was anyway related to the other "Paid editing blowup".
And Jimbo, try to imagine i.e. that you cannot see USA in a listing of hosts countries of Olympics or International Olympic Committee Countries, or cannot see Lebron James in "North-American international sportsmen" due to a new extrange "invented sovereign State" that always is against yours with confrontation everywhere.
The Catalan Speaking people of Valencian Community, and Balearic Islands are a little shocked here, hehe.

To "more substantive examples of bias", I need more more time, it's difficult to become a content curator or a kind of file sorter in a few weeks, to put all in a listing with journalist style heh hehe... (sorry my bad english).
Aside from the Spanish flag ban on international lists (being replaced by regional one, causing confusion in catalan speaking people from the rest of Spain), and the substitution of Catalan-Speaking-Official-Names-Voted-by-the-People, by secessionist-nicknames-... well, it's difficult to admit, living 25 years here to see in internet this new "names" (I'm 25).
I need more time to check The history fact changes (like "Is not said Kingdom of Spain, is Castile that oppresses people of Catalonia etc..." when all people knows that Kingdom of Spain was born in the marriage of Isabella I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon -not "catalonia"- in 1469) I need more more time to see if Spanish Flag is the only one that is banned, or Madrid one and others too... I'm sorry for International Olympic Committee.
If the Olympics 1992 were NOT in Spain in an international listing of COI Countries, and the Expo 1888 was NOT in Spain, well, I have nothing to work and write so I'll try to put more hard work to put Spain back in history in ca.wikipedia.org I have to thank you have tried (almost all) to read my large paragraph (hehe), not revert to me or threaten me (i.e. using bots to prevent infinite blocking issues or articles like the other ca.wikipedia), which I really appreciate. Thanks for your patience and I will continue giving my best.
"Satisfaction lies in the effort, not in the attainment. Full effort is full victory." Thanks anyway and Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.9.217.223 (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok here is what I recommend to you. I'm listening but skeptical. You'll want to write a very calm and detailed explanation of the problems that you see. Avoid extreme rhetoric, as it tends to be less persuasive than a calm statement of clear facts. Focus on deviations between what appears in ca.wikipedia and reliable sources - I don't care about your opinions on the region, nor about the opinions of the other contributors, except insofar as everyone is following reliable sources. Minor instances of bias, where I might think they should choose differently, aren't even going to motivate me to ask them formally about it, so if that's all this is, then best to just drop it now.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Jimbo, I hope you are doing fine. Well, I must tell you I am really surprised and sorry to see that you pay (any) attention and credit to Mr. 88.9.217.223 (seems to be a male user...) since he keeps on vandalizing for ages the Catalan Wikipedia under anonymous or puppet accounts... He also created trouble in Meta not that long ago, not to mention his other interventions in many Wikipedias. No wonder he keeps on doing this since he gets so much attention...

But worse, you seem to doubt about some things in the Catalan Wikipedia and I am really sorry to read this... Communities of editors really strive hard to make the Wikipedias work and progress and I think their people should get more credit than this... Well, let me say that there are many (honest and decent in my opinion and at least a pair of administrators very finicky about reliable sources) administrators and editors there (obviously they could be wrong... but...) while there is just one person, moreover an anonymous Troll, who never appears to be constructive, just plainly disruptive, who keeps complaining about it, shouldn't that count?

If you need more information about the use of "País Valencià/Valencian Country", you can check the Spanish Wikipedia which can't be accused of being too Catalanist or secessionist ([[1]]) and then the issue about the use of the flags is obviously a more complicated issue (actually I think that in general no flags were removed except by our anonymous "friend") and can depend on your stance: you could use local (city), regional (region/state in the US), statal (country) or superstatal (the European Union for instance) and that would be right according to sourcing...

Sorry to bother again... and well I wish to you and your people all the best. And thanks for what you have done so far and what may come next. Best regards, Claudi/Capsot (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. In case you might be (slightly) interested..., the same user is probably using a sockpuppet User:BernardaAlba, among many other anonymous IPs related to changes about Catalan or Basque issues/things (see ETA for instance), and could probably be Dyvid6, a known vandal in the Catalan and Spanish Wikipedias where he is been active/disruptive for years... Sincerely, Claudi/Capsot (talk) 08:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Antisemitism in the Foundation

The person in question no longer works for the Wikimedia Foundation (cf. wmf:staff). It's probably best not to use Jimmy's talk page to discuss personal views of a regular editor on a different project. If you disagree with the Arabic Wikipedia's user box policy, you'll need to discuss the issue with the Arabic Wikipedia. Though I'd caution that cultures vary widely and Arabic as a language can be particularly difficult to properly translate into English. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2013 (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 just saw this post on Wikipediocracy about the allegations of the Croatian Wikipedia being co-opted by the far right, but what really caught my attention was this detail:

Extreme right-wing views can apparently be found even among the Wikimedia Foundation’s own staff. Its Education Program Consultant for the Arab World, Faris El-Gwely, sports a little green userbox with a black and white picture of Adolf Hitler on his user page in the Arabic Wikipedia. The Arabic text next to that image reads, “This user respects Adolf Hitler”.

The translated version of the user page in question can be found here. It is not the only userbox of concern as there is one stating "This user believes the existence of evil schemes to destroy Arab", another saying "this user stands violently against the Zionist crimes against the Arab people will never forgive them what they had done the displacement and murder, terrorism and rape of freedom and dignity of the Arabs", and one stating "this user is anti-Zionist". Now the last one would not be of concern on its own, but an "anti-Zionist" who "believes in the existence of evil schemes to destroy Arabs" and "respects Adolf Hitler" sure as hell sounds like a virulent antisemite.

I understand that many Arabs are bombarded with misinformation on certain points of Jewish history because of Israel, so finding this type of attitude on the Arabic Wikipedia should not be totally surprising, but it is a whole other kettle of fish for the Foundation's education program consultant to the Arab World to adhere to such views. This isn't some programmer or technical assistant whose actions will not have an impact on the content. His page has had those userboxes since before he started working with the Foundation so it is not as though this could not have been caught beforehand.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Is his position in the Foundation a paid one? If so no way will I ever donate money to the WMF ever again and I'm sure I am not the only Jew who will feel this way, and trust me lots of us will be hearing about this. The Foundation, I am sure is not anti-Semitic as a whole or in its decisions, however- if this is all true and he went through a venting process and hired and receives a paycheck, are you telling me at no point did anyone decide to check his page on Wikipedia to see what it said...? So, either someone's incompetence allowed him to be hired without removing that and repudiating the statement or even worse, the Foundation did not see it as a problem. IF what is written is correct about this individual- which is it? Incompetence or a belief that anti-Semitism is ok?Camelbinky (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2013 (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.

I think this discussion should be moved to either Meta Wiki or the Arabic Wikipedia. However I have notified him on his talk that this thread took place. Looking at his talk, there may also be some backlash from the German Wikipedia. Ross Hill Talk to me! 23:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I also saw the post and am startled to see that a user who appears to be verifiably xenophobic/racist was employed by the foundation. Not sure what "cultures vary widely" by MZMcBride means. By the way, he still has a WMF account here: User:Felgwely_(WMF), and I'm not sure he no longer works for the foundation, I'd like to see some confirmation of that. He also has an active account here: User:Faris_knight, so this isn't just an editor on another project, he edits here. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Even if he is no longer working for the Foundation it beggars belief that they would bring him on board for such a role without taking the most basic step of looking at his user page.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I can confirm that Faris El-Gwely's contract with the Wikimedia Foundation ended on September 30, 2013. -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Why are indicators left on the account that he is currently employed by the WMF a week after leaving: User:Faris_knight? Are old WMF accounts like User:Felgwely_(WMF) not locked after contracts expire? Is this a WMF work twitter account (which is linked on his WMF account): [2] (i.e it certainly looks like a still active WMF account)? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Old (WMF) accounts aren't locked - mine from several years ago is still in existence and I can still log in to it, although Philippe did change my userpage to indicate I have no affiliation with the WMF. I don't think anyone systematically marks (WMF) accounts as soon as contracts expire. Practices have certainly changed since, but when I was an intern my (WMF) account wasn't properly marked as a (WMF) account until my internship was almost over, and it wasn't marked as no longer being an active (WMF) account for something like four months after that. I think people just occasionally go mark all the old accounts as being old accounts, instead of trying to do so as soon as someone's official affiliation ends. (N.b.: I have no knowledge of this situation in particular, I just wanted to point out that (WMF) accounts are not systematically locked or staff categories removed as soon as contracts expire.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

That would be a rather simple and helpful thing to make a policy of doing, if the (WMF) tag is intended to be in any way informative. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 01:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

@Ldavis: was the termination of his contract related to this issue? --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 01:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe the problem is wider than that. A few months ago one "smart" Wikipedian said: "What I wrote was that the Mrs Grundys of WP are a liability - and yes, as long as the quality of an article is good, I couldn't care whether the contributor is gay, a paedophile, has nasty toilet habits or is a supporter of the Taliban - and neither should you." I am not sure about pedophiles, but I know for sure that some Wikipedians are racist, some are members of such forums as stormfront, and some are simply dirty bullies. Sadly those are the ones who often participate in the so called Community discussions. Jimbo and the WMF are well aware about the problem, yet their trust in the so called Wikipedia community's ability to govern the site remains firm. 24.4.37.209 (talk) 02:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

24.4, you just wrote that "the ones who often participate in the so called Community discussions" are racist and/or members of such forums as stormfront and/or simply dirty bullies. That´s not polite and I don´t think it´s true. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

That is an incorrect summary of what was said. The editor said some, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. English is not my first language, but I still think my reading is correct. 24.4 wrote that "some wikipedians are [bad things]", and that those "some" are "the ones who often participate in the so called Community discussions". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

English is not my first language either, but I have the same reading. --cyclopia ^speak! 13:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

@24.4 With the quote you are comparing gay people to paedophiles and Taliban, etc, which is highly offensive and homophobic. --Space simian (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not comparing anything, I simply quoted a Wikipedian. I don't agree with the author of that quote. I agree with you that the quote could be read as homophobic. 00:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.37.209 (talk)
  - OK, thanks for clarifying. I'm sorry if I jumped to conclusions. --Space simian (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

As of today the user page of that user still states "This user works at the Wikimedia Foundation", and that his employer is the Wikimedia foundation. Even if that user no longer works for the WMF he's still a member of the Wikipedia community. If the translation of his Arabic user page is correct and that user really respects Hitler, I'd be ashamed to be a member of the community that tolerates such users, but I see the user was notified about this discussion. Let's wait for his explanations. 24.4.37.209 (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Not trying to stir the pot here, but a user should be allowed to state his or her own opinions. Just as some are pro-Zionist, some can be anti-Zionist too. I don't agree with anti-Zionism, but if we allow free speech (ie people who put "I like my religion" everywhere) we should allow free speech across the board. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 16:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

A statement that “This user respects Adolf Hitler” is not 'Anti-Zionist'. It is a statement that the user respects a genocidal psychopath responsible for the murder of millions. It is a statement utterly at odds with the objectives of the WMF, and of basic human dignity. (And for the record, read WP:FREESPEECH - Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy). AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Besides the user is in the category "User-abiding Adolf Hitler"24.4.37.209 (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with it either. But playing the devil's advocate, if you are allowed to have 200 different userboxes with a cross or star of David on it, and that isn't soapboxing, then what is? Hitler is really inapporpriate, but should we target people for having one religious or politically motivated infobox? Where do we draw the line? Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 21:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Should we target people for having one politically motivated infobox? Yes, if the infobox says “This user respects Adolf Hitler”. Any more stupid questions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

There's no reason to personally attack me about it. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 22:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Were this simply a matter of someone working as a programmer for the Foundation or someone who was just a regular editor having this userbox it would be one thing, but we are talking about someone who directly interacts with projects recruiting prospective editors, while guiding and instructing them in how to edit Wikipedia. A person who would be responsible for monitoring what these editors are doing as part of these projects. That goes beyond just having someone with unsavory views editing on this site.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

A person publicly supports someone who has committed genocide should not be editing wikipedia or be associated with/employed by Wikimedia in any way. Comparing someone supporting the Nazis seemingly because they killed the Jews to someone having a star of David on their user page is patently ridiculous. This kind of "all views are welcome" mantra never seems to realise that there are moderate views and then there are loony bin extremes. I doubt many here would associate themselves with Nazi-sympathisers in real life and it shouldn't make a slight bit of difference just because we are on the internet. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

We don't know what his views are, we're making assumptions here that are not necessarily correct. While I agree that he shouldn't have been hired by the WMF, one cannot say that he supports genocide of Jews by Hitler. The hidden assumption one makes here is that he would accept the historical facts about the Holocaust. While Holocaust denial in the West is typically seen as a disingenuous attitude to hide that you do support the extermination of the Jews, in the Arab World many people really do not accept the truth about the Holocaust. There exists a widely supported conspiracy theory in the Arab World that what we know to be the facts about the Holocaust, is Western propaganda to support Israel. That may be difficult for us to swallow, but it is still a reality. Count Iblis (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Your basically saying "Wait a second, he might not be supporting genocide, he might be a holocaust denier instead". Both of those are far right extremes and in both cases he should be blocked, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

As I pointed out, there are many Holocaust deniers in the Arab world who genuinly believe in this, they are not necessarily extreme right wing people. Also, by your logic we should ban almost all Turkish editors for denying the Armenian Genocide. Count Iblis (talk) 23:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no problem here because of the disclaimer which says: "Disclaimer: Although I work for the Wikimedia Foundation, contributions under this account do not necessarily represent the actions or views of the Foundation unless expressly stated otherwise. For example, edits to articles or uploads of other media are done in my individual, personal capacity unless otherwise stated." Count Iblis (talk) 23:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

It is a problem when the person was given a position that allowed him some significant influence over editing activity on Wikipedia. He was a Foundation employee whose job was helping to recruit and organize new editors for various Wikipedia projects and monitoring their activities. That he has apparent antisemitic views is not a good thing as it suggests he might favor certain things or ignore certain things that an editor without such views would recognize as inappropriate for an objective encyclopedia.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

So much for the closing of this thread, but hey...you can't stop someone from having a horrible, personal view...but you can make them keep their personal bias off the articles and project. I hope we are not just on a witch hunt due to someone's own opinion that may not be popular or even accurate. But...every editor has a right to their opinion and a witch hunt to remove them wont' remove the bias. it may just make it worse.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Its not a witch hunt when they declare their views on the talk page. No editor has any rights to edit wikipedia beyond what they are given. This is not a democracy. Wikipedia's constitution isn't the United States constitution. People have the rights to their opinions elsewhere, but not here, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that could have been a problem. But then, it's possible for his actions to be evaluated to see if there had been problems with his work at the WMF. Usually the sort of statements made on that infobox are meant to be extremely provocative, they don't actually reflect well how that person really thinks on this issue. The point is to say things that they know are hurtful to their enemy. So, this person may well believe that Hitler was a bad person and that the Jews in Israel are normal persons like he is. The statement in that infobox is then an attack against Israel motivated by the things that Israel has done wrong. Count Iblis (talk) 00:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

To expand on this a bit, we in the West live in peace today, so we are not used to this. But when we get involved in a war, then our own norms about acceptable behavior changes a lot, take e.g. this. Count Iblis (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Really? "We in the West live in peace today? 24.4.37.209 (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, these attacks and the way they shocked society points to us being accustomed to living in a peaceful society where these things don't normally happen. Count Iblis (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, you aren't Mark Miller. You know that the Wikipedia user pages belong to the WMF and that the WMF could and should stop fascists and racists "from having a horrible, personal view" on their user pages. Jimbo, you aren't Count Iblis. You understand that explaining that the user states that he respects adolph hitler by "this person may well believe that Hitler was a bad person and that the Jews in Israel are normal persons like he is. The statement in that infobox is then an attack against Israel motivated by the things that Israel has done wrong" is so desperately absurd that it does not warrant a response. Jimbo, you are the co-founder of Wikipedia, and it is disappointing you haven't bothered to comment on this topic. 24.4.37.209 (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

24.4.37.209—you are editing from an IP address. Your argument that "you are the co-founder of Wikipedia, and it is disappointing you haven't bothered to comment on this topic" doesn't make much sense as you are not offering a clue as to your identity in relation to the history of Wikipedia. Are you a banned account? Are you a productive editor? You are revealing little about yourself. Yet you are pointing out that somebody else is "the co-founder of Wikipedia". I'm not opposed to unregistered accounts. But the differences should be recognized. Bus stop (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

OK. I have a registered account and I'm a "productive editor", so you may have to listen to what I'm saying without dismissing it out of hand. I want you to conduct a thought experiment. A person shows up for a job interview—as a representative of a Foundation which espouses humanistic, Englightment values as its core principles—wearing a button that says "I respect Adolf Hitler". That's basically what happened here. How should that interview go?

The fact that some people are defending this on free-expression grounds or calling it a "witch hunt" demonstrates how bizarrely out of touch with the real world the Wikipedia community has become and, frankly, why sane editors have been fleeing this place in droves for the last few years. I never, ever thought I'd find myself typing these words, but The Devil's Advocate is entirely right here. It's not fair to hold Jimbo personally responsible for every hiring decision, but it is fair to ask for some sort of response from the Foundation. MastCell ^Talk 17:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

He would not get the job; he has freedom of speech, but companies have the freedom to hire people based on their preferences. But the reason why some people are leaving Wikpedia has nothing to do with this sort of an issue. Most people who hold politically incorrect views are nice people who don't cause problems, while the people who do cause problems that lead to editors leaving here are usually the average people whose political views look normal.

If I hold certain extremist views then I have to deal with that when interacting with other people, this would typically lead to me becoming a lot better than average in communicating with people on controversial subjects. The average person will have less experience with that, and then things may well go wrong on Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The concern is not that the right people would leave, but that the wrong people would join. He could not control the content, but his position did give him some influence over the environment and the trajectory of some Wikipedia projects. Are you saying you see nothing wrong about someone with such views helping to shape how new editors enter Wikipedia?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I do see the potential problem with that sort of job, I agree that this should lead to a priori disqualification from being considered for such a job. In this case, I don't think the infoboxes point to a big problem, we look at this from our Western perspective and that leads to a picture of some Neo-Nazi like person. But in the Arab world such views are far more normal than here, therefore that picture we get is wrong. So, while he shouldn't have been hired as a precaution, that doesn't mean that when he was in the job he would likely have caused big problems. It's just like that to prevent drunk people from driving you need to have a limit on your blood alcohol levels that must be set rather low. That doesn't mean that everyone who is caught driving at slightly higher levels would have caused problems due to the alcohol. But the law must be upheld, therefore one shouldn't drive even after drinking half a glass of beer. Count Iblis (talk) 13:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe the Foundation needs to make a public statement on this issue, as it calls into question the Foundation's ability to hire and supervise staff overseas. The educational program isn't just about spreading knowledge, it's also about spreading the community's values (public access to knowledge, public participation in knowledge-creation, etc.) The statements made on the user's talk page, (including his support for Hitler and his apparent endorsement of violence), if they are being translated reasonably, lead me to believe that this user should not be representing the Foundation and the community. That he was a paid representative of the Foundation is deeply troubling and the Foundation should provide more detail on how they view this incident and what changes, if any, they believe need to be made to prevent a recurrence.GabrielF (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised to find myself agreeing with something that came from Wikipediocracy, but yes, the WMF needs to take serious action here. Someone hired this guy, and whoever that person was made a serious mistake and needs to be held accountable; I'd assume reading userpages would be a basic first step before hiring anybody. Furthermore... he's a sysop and a 'crat on ar.wp... am I the only one who has a serious problem with this? Jimbo, you've said in the past that people who believe horrible things have no right to edit Wikipedia. To me, this seems like the perfect opportunity to apply that philosophy. The WMF should pull any privileged access that El-Gwely holds, and should do the same for any other users who have displayed views such as his. — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 03:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

While I am most presently concerned with what it says of the WMF's hiring practices, the way some other language wikis have been completely co-opted by abusive governments or the far-right is a grave concern. Even if the WMF does not traditionally get involved directly in the content, there should be a point where a situation is so severe that they take extraordinary action. They should not wait for someone to bring it to their attention either as such developments should be caught before they get out of hand.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

semi-protect for a short time?

Would any lurking admins consider semi-protecting Jimbo's talk page for a short duration? Indef-blocked User:Colton Cosmic is making one of his monthly sock-puppeting visits to pester for an unblock. Tarc (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Reading his posting here, it seems to me that he intended to let that be his last statement here, the revert war was about him wanting to let that last message here stand for a while. Since all the previous postings by him were tolerated by Jimbo, I see no harm in letting that posting by him stand. Semi-protection comes at the cost of other IPs not being able to post here. Count Iblis (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Blocked users endlessly returning to sock do not have right to leave parting shots/messages outside of their own user page. This user has been given the instructions on how to appeal the block via off-wikipedia means. That is their only recourse. Tarc (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm lurking but I see no reason not to let Jimbo decide for himself if he wants to keep it or not. (Note that I am also not inclined to block the IP for block evasion etc. This one message isn't trolling or any other violation, IMO. When they start putting penises all over Tarc's user page is when I'll block.) Drmies (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Is Why don't you go back to teaching your grandmother to suck eggs, Gollum? This is C o l t o n C o s m i c. 1:53 PM, EST. sufficient? It's just another troll who can't handle the fact that they have been shown the door, nothing more. Tarc (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  - Well dammit--I was going to show you that I am of good will and can be abusive on demand, but someone else beat me to it. Ah well. Still, you can't blame them for being pissed at you. Drmies (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unpenised and unabusive comment added by Drmies 18:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC) - BegoonBot ^talk 18:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
    - For the last few days I was reading this page I couldn't help wondering if Wikipedians including the Wikipedia co-founder Jimbo Wales (who still hasn't bothered to comment on this topic) are more concerned about socks of blocked accounts posting here than about fascists, racists, and maybe even pedophiles editing Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.37.209 (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
      - Thing is, people are blocked for not being able to edit here without causing problems. It doesn't matter if you are a pedophile, fascist, racist or a model citizen, you only get blocked if you don't behave well here. A sock is thus a priori more of problem for Wikipedia than a pedophile. Count Iblis (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
        Actually I see it differently. For instance there's nothing that prevents Wikipedia's pedophiles, or slightly odd for that matter, from contacting unsuspected kids-users using Wikipedia's email function. On the other hand whistleblowers who expose such behavior get blocked. The same applies to exposing users who participate in such racist forums as stormfront and to exposing bullies. 24.4.37.209 (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
        The problem here is similar to what one faces in free democratic societies. You can't put people in pre-emptive detention. There is always going to be some pressure from society to try to do something about people that are seen to be a potential threat to society. But it turns out that a system that allows for action to be taken on such grounds leads to human rights abuses, which then leads to factional violence. Wikipedia is like our society a free social system and this then also vulnerable to the same problem. The solution is to adopt the analogue rules we have in society for dealing with criminals. Count Iblis (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
        Well, I've got a different impression: Wikipedia is nothing like our, I mean Western, society. Wikipedia is just a crocked-mirror reflection of our society in each and every mean, including treating people,respecting human rights, and dealing with known criminals. 24.4.37.209 (talk) 14:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
If Jimbo can found Wikipedia, he's probably competent enough to know what and what not can be put on a talk page. Let him control his own page. And if Colton cosmic wants to edit through a sock, I say give him some rope. Chances are he'll end up getting blocked for ducking and trolling talk pages. KonveyorBelt 03:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Wrap-Up on Block Appeal to Founder

This is a FYI courtesy to those who read here a week-and-an-half ago and prior to that about my unblock case, and I suppose a parting shot to Jimbo. I was falsely and abusively (no warning, no explanation) blocked for socking in May 2012. Since then, but not before, I have indeed block evaded, like this post essentially. Anyone who says editing by IP while clearly signing with your one and only user-name is "socking" is just twisting words around. On the other hand I plead guilty any day of the week to "block evasion," which is justifiable in clear cases of administrative abuse. About 45 days ago, Jimbo agreed to hear my appeal. We exchanged emails. Mine is a WP:CLEANSTART account, I switched for the online privacy and harassment rationale authorized by that policy. After the block, several admins and arbs, notably Silktork, made disclosure of my prior account the key criterion to be unblocked. If you think about it though, that would in no way prove I didn't sock. It does nothing except satisfy their curiosity and give them another account to plug into checkuser. In my opinion there's a sickness in Wikipedia's "sock puppet investigation" personnel, what some of these guys are doing is really sublimating their cyber-stalking impulses. "Hand over your prior account or stay blocked" demands are coercive and have no basis in policy, so I consistently resisted that, until Jimbo said the same thing, promised confidentiality (which no-one prior to that had) and I thought well, okay, this is Jimmy Wales. Silly me.

Jimbo, I won't quote your email publicly but I just reread it and in two ways you clearly suggested that if I told you my prior account, and it proved to be non-problematic, you'd favorably treat my block appeal. Wikipedians, I did just that, and it was, and my reward from founder is nothing more than a big fat "suckah!!!" He says, okay you told me, now you have to tell Arbcom, all 12 of them, whomever else is on the list, and whomever will ever be on it due to the fact they keep an archive. I said, but the account checked out, this was not our arrangement, but I'm like Lando Calrissian protesting Darth Vader's brand of deal-making by this point. Jimbo, I edited Wikipedia for years, authored plenty of stubs and articles, even sent WMF a charitable donation once. You want to dismissively handle me, not even explaining your move, I guess that's your authority, but I give you a public thumbs-down, a cyber raspberry, and I warn off those in the future who think they're liable to get a square deal out of you, "sole founder" (New York Times). All, what's my Wikipedia future? Well, as a matter of policy, I think any administrator at all can still unblock me. I was never the subject of Arbcom sanctions, or blocked by an oversighter on secret stuff or anything like that. It's just been a string of "appeal declineds" up and down the line, including now one by founder. You may now rest on the assurance that Jimbo has examined my previous account and found it warn, block, and sanction-free. But as a matter of survival and keeping your bit, you'd indeed risk the ire of some arbs, and the dingo pack at WP:AN/ANI. In closing, fellow Wikipedians, best regards, I don't know but after Jimbo's decline I guess you have heard the last of me. This is C o l t o n C o s m i c. 9:23 AM, EST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.254.161.23 (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Tarc, let Jimbo decide if he wants to keep it, OK? He's a big boy. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, the rant is instructive of why the ban will remain in place.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Izzatafact, god-king? This is C o l t o n C o s m i c. 4:38 PM, EST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.226.1.57 (talk20:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)‎

Perhaps edit other-language wikipedias and wait for improvement: Colton, if I had the admin bit, I would consider unblocking after an agreement to tone down the complaints. However, I think Jimbo often has to work with support of Arbcom and that is why a few more people should know the background (if it could be kept secret). Anyway, when I have been blocked, I have worked on the other-language wikipedias (with different usernames), and they still need massive help from capable people. Hence, rather than be frustrated by a block, consider it a chance to learn more about the other languages. Intelligent people often use some repeated patterns of language idioms which allow easy updates in other languages, even if not totally fluent, where a certain amount of "rote phrases" can still help expand information for other languages. However, I share the concerns about punishment for sock-puppetry, as I have also been blocked when using a different username for privacy concerns. WP really needs to focus on "proportional punishment" and stop pretending that punishment is not an issue, because it has allowed some users to get away with massive violations because they are "not harming" the 'pedia, whereas applying "equal punishment" for violations would re-balance the consequences for improper actions. Unfortunately, many people do not "think big" and realize how the wiki-peculiar culture has bizarre consequences, which could be avoided by following more real-world practices, such as measured sanctions for each policy violation by issuing demerit points (to anyone) until the cumulative count reaches a threshold to issue a block. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Colton, there's one common thread to what people have been telling you forever: quit while you're ahead and follow the proper process. Yes, you may believe the original block was improper. The community (and Jimbo) have now time and time again found otherwise. So, even if you were wronged, your best way back in is to play the hand you were dealt. That means no socking, and following WP:OFFER to the letter. Whether the block - and your subsequent ban - were valid have become irrelevant in the mind of the community as a whole. That's now a fact of life, and it's a factor of the nature of a community and its concept of consensus. When you signed up, you AGREED to live by those concepts. Yes, if you were blocked wrongly, then it sucks, and you feel crappy because of it. However, you have appealed and appealed, it's now time to live by what the rules you agreed to - maybe you want to watch the Shawshank Redemption once or twice. Making parting shots, editing as a sock ... these ALL led to proving to the community that you were not ready to be a part of it - you proved them RIGHT, instead of proving them WRONG. So ... it's up to you to suck it up and fix it, and the only way to fix it is to get over what you perceive to be wrong, and follow the damned rules ... no matter how distasteful it seems. ES &L 12:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixing broken 2013 RfA process

Yes, RfA problems again. I also tried a wp:RfA (aka "Request for Abuse"), after 8 years of waiting, and it was still as bad an experience as everyone has been warning: block-log entries from 3-7 years ago were treated as if yesterday, and many insults were over-the-top. The quickest fix: as you, Jimbo, have suggested:

Have a house of wikilords: There needs to be a system of appointed wiki-lords, as users given various user rights, perhaps selected by groups of similar-focus admins, to be rejected only by strong evidence of problems, and because wikilords are *appointed* then they could be unappointed, perhaps temporarily, at any time when their actions seemed to diverge off-course.

Currently, the RfA process seems like a "insta-poll popularity contest" rather than a "job interview" and the main focus directs people to issue judgmental decisions of Support/Oppose within seconds of starting an RfA page. Also, there are unusual cultural twists in RfA discussions, such as treating rebuttals to objections as being "badgering of opposes" rather than a logical discussion to clarify misunderstandings. Because I was a formal debate judge for years, I was not fooled to refrain from refuting incorrect claims (bottomline: debaters who fail to refute claims partially will lose a formal debate). Plus, of course, the RfA process allows the same level of insults as could be expected at wp:ANI, except each user's wp:RfA page is named with their username as an obvious, obvious case of "wp:Attack page". The whole process is completely awry, and I had to respond quickly to refute wp:NPA insults which would otherwise stand as accepted by begging the question. Anyway, the only workable solution, to the current judgmental RfA process, is to separate the interview-period from the judgement period:

Split RfA into interview days versus judgment days: Hence, an RfA would begin with a questions-only phase of 4 days, as a job interview, with perhaps some competency tests depending on the stated intent of the candidate. Then, another period, of perhaps 4 days, could be the judgment period of Support/Oppose/Neutral.

The 1st, interview phase would discuss issues, and hopefully, follow "rules of evidence" (real evidence, not spin-doctored slants) to have specific diff-links; plus the focus would be on asking questions about the activities which the candidate would be performing. If the questions, or potential admin tasks, seemed too difficult, then the candidate could withdraw during the first phase. Then the 2nd, judgement phase could be longer if any insults were redacted meanwhile, by a neutral moderator, so that a candidate would not have to watchdog the RfA as being an outrageous personal attack-page during the whole time period. I was totally unaware that an RfA was like a wp:ANI thread open to insults, except with a person's username "flashing in lights" as a beacon to come see the insults by name. No wonder some people refer to the RfA period as a horrific experience, and as I said, if I had not been a debate judge for years, I might also have been tricked in allowing insults to stand, unrefuted, because of fear to avoid "badgering the opponents" who hurl unfounded insults. However, a separate "House of wikilords" would allow quick appointments, such as a request for 20 bilingual admins if an avalanche of new articles were created with non-English sources, pushing the limits of notability decisions due to a lack of other-language skills. Anyway, I would warn anyone, who plans an wp:RfA, to be prepared to defend yourself from over-the-top insults during the whole time period, and do not be fooled into keeping quiet to refute claims just to avoid "badgering of opponents" while insults are hurled without restraint. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh man, this is so sad. You were making such a good impression with your posts in #VE bad links on 22 September above, and then you go and spoil it with this section. If I got snowed that bad, I would step back for some serious personal meditation and reflection rather than come vent in this most public place. I see that apparently some admins have behaved so badly that they have been topic-banned; I didn't realize that. So perhaps life is unfair and there's a double-standard here, you'll have to deal with that. Maybe just focus first on getting that ban lifted first, before applying to be an admin? Hope you can apply for the template editor user right soon, good luck. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the words of encouragement, but other users have been coming to this talk-page, warning others for years about the RfA process, and the problems in the RfA process need to be pinpointed, in order to be improved. There have been prior discussions with vague details about various RfA experiences. However, in this case, I saw the distortion in progress, because I had lived the actual details for 8 years. Also, other people have warned there was discrimination against users with block-logs, and the attitudes should have improved by now, but I was even condemned for a wp:3RR block 7 years ago. Also, I had to remind people how I was strongly advised to retain my topic-ban about college student Amanda Knox acquitted of the 2007 Murder of Meredith Kercher (her British flatmate in Perugia, Italy), because many other users had been indef-blocked, and my topic-ban protected me from getting blocked along with them. Recently, long-term power user Rich_Farmbrough (WP's highest edit-count for years) was indef-blocked (site-banned) after users could not learn to work with him, and so that shows how anyone can be blocked despite the incentive to try to keep a valuable editor by finding ways to work together. If people cannot understand how that topic-ban has protected me during the past 3 years, then I wonder if they understand how to think like an admin, and how to use tactics to protect users from newcomers being secretly investigated for advocacy stopped by indef-blocks. Anyway, I just wanted to let Jimbo know what I saw in the rush-to-judgment of a popularity contest, which does not wait 4 days while discussing issues before entering an Oppose/Support/Neutral comment. Next time someone reports problems in the RfA process, then this can be a point of comparison. As for me, I am far too busy to perform admin duties at this time, so I am relieved that my RfA was closed early, and I just objected to the general RfA process. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Farmbrough is not "indef-blocked (site-banned)", he was blocked for 1 year, and as far as I know still can use his talk page. I admire the way he's conducted himself during the block. In contrast to another editor who a couple months ago was indefinitely blocked, email disabled, and cannot edit their own talk page. Please just stop digging your hole deeper. It's painful to watch. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, Farmbrough might have a 1-year block now, but I do not think anything has changed to work with him, so upon return he would get another 1-year block? ...as I said, "indef-blocked". His restriction of "no automated edits" was untenable, and when he violated it at the end, he made more than 1,000 repeated changes inside a page (sending a clear message I think), so I suggest a compromise where he might use automated edits but with a mentor to approve those edits, or reduce the scope of edits as needed, but not zero automation. -Wikid77 08:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

@Wikid77. RFA is a broken process, but not entirely the way you think. Old issues rarely cause opposes unless people have reason to think that they persist, one test of a good candidate is to be able to demonstrate how you've resolved such issues. The good thing about RFA is that it isn't a popularity contest, a sufficiently over qualified candidate can sail through with over a hundred supports, the vast majority of whom have never previously interacted with them. The bad things include the overreliance of the !voters on the Q&A section and simplistic measures such as raw edit count and length of tenure, combined with galloping standards inflation, but standards inflation re the most easily measured criteria. My fear is that good candidates are being deterred by arbitrarily high requirements for edit count and tenure, (as well as the occasional incivil participant) and that we risk bad eggs slipping through due to insufficient scrutiny of their actual edits. But the good news about RFA is that the long decline has bottomed out, after five consecutive years of sharp falls in the number of new RFAs, 2013 has already seen as many successful RFAs as 2012. RFA still has problems, we are a long way from being able to appoint as many new admins as we lose to retirement etc; So we are still heading towards a cliff, but are no longer accelerating towards that cliff. Ϣere SpielChequers 07:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, other factors have shown a resurgence in Wikipedia activity, beyond more new admins, such as people asking why protected-template updates from 3 years ago did not get installed. Plus I imagine the VisualEditor did not hurt editor retention, because over 94% of editors avoided it each week. As for the RfA process, I see niche groups supporting a fellow editor, as a way to increase the support pile-on, and I think that might be an effective way to overcome judgmental restrictions; however, the danger is to promote a candidate with a secret agenda to use the powers in other ways. In cases of editors blocked for the Amanda Knox case, we see an unrelenting determination to thwart them, as evidenced in User_talk:Charlie_wilkes#Block where a responding admin refused the unblock request because his supporters all knew him from the same article, the only article (duh) where we all worked together, and he had provided reliable sources to disprove a claim how suspects lied about when they called police, as later refuted by sources. However, my RfA is an extreme case of someone topic-banned with numerous editors blocked, while trying to write about what was later confirmed in court. However, I think splitting an RfA into an interview phase, with later judgment phase, would give people more time to see the hollowness of several editors all blocked together who were later proven correct by court reports. Yet, insults about my knowledge of Wikipedia software, or misinformation, were likely too complex for RfA discussion and scary to others. Technical people need to be selected by a panel of technical users; otherwise it could be too confusing/boring for others to follow. But again, approval should be recommended by a random sample of users who review a candidate. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

@WereSpielChequers. Quoting myself on these things: Timbo's Rule 16. The slogan of "Adminship is No Big Deal" needs to be reestablished. Currently RfA is a 7 day proctological exam, conducted by a tag team of 150 people of differing intentions — some of whom wish to subject the patient's rectum to blunt-force trauma during the process. Only people who REALLY like proctologists would be advised to run. (July 2012) /// Timbo's Rule 17. Then again, proctological exams do help ward off certain types of cancer. (Oct. 2012). Carrite (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

There are a lot of misunderstandings about what is wrong with RfA. A truly huge amount of research was done into it at WP:RFA2011 that pretty well identified the real problems. Among the regular !voters (and this pool of editors changes slowly over time in a cycle of about 2 years or so) there are three main factions: Those who feel that every established editor should have the bit, those who think adminship in general should be abolished to be replace by some other totally different system, and those who provide well researched, objective rationales for their votes whether they know the candidate or not. The remainder and the vast majority is a very transient pool of people who have only ever voted on one or two RfAs. Among these are the ones who very often appear to fail to understand what adminship is all about and probably do little or no research and just pile on.

It's interesting to note that en.Wiki is one of the very few major Wikipedias not to have introduced a minimum requirement for voting at RfA. If it appears that the dearth of candidates seems to have bottomed out, this is possibly due to the fact that the traditional PA and incivility at RfA has somewhat, but not entirely abated. I think we should give it a little longer however before claiming the improvement as a clear trend. That said, whether we have enough candidates or whether RfA is really a 'horrible and broken process', it does do it its job reasonably well - if the very rare close calls demonstrate anything. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, oddly we might agree on the close calls if not on the rest. I fear that RFA and especially its reputation is scaring away many well qualified candidates. Paradoxically the shift in focus of the RFA community from judging candidates on their edits to the Q&A section and simple stats such as number of edits and length of tenure may also be letting more bad eggs through. I've seen one admin from recent years be desysopped despite getting over 90% support. I doubt we have sufficient stats yet but it would be interesting to see if the last couple of hundred admins wind up with a lower proportion of bad eggs than the earlier batches. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think a few troublesome admin promotions could be expected, and "people have a right to be wrong about a candidate" but they do not have a right to treat an RfA as a named wp:attack-page, so I will be more vigilant to check for attacks posted to future RfA pages and redact vicious insults, to be sure people provide adequate diff-links to support their claims. The more people who view an RfA as a cordial discussion of qualifications, then the better the chances for more candidates to apply. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The systems that deal with the Admins and ArbCom won't be changed because they have become fundamental parts of Wikipedia and you'll never get a consensus to make significant changes. That's why e.g. the de-admining propsal failed. It's similar to why in the US Congress has a very low approval rating but any proposal to make even small changes to the system (e.g. term limits), is a non-starter.

Perhaps what could work is to make a copy of the entire Wikipedia (Wikipedia-beta) that has the same articles but which has a different Adminstrative infrastructure. Then, if over time the beta version is seen to work better, then one makes that the standard version and one can then try out some new experimental changes by creating another Wikipedia-beta. Count Iblis (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It will be difficult, if not impossible, to change the RfA system as long as current Admins have a stake in keeping the standards high and the barriers to entry arduous. If there is a large enough group of Editors, they could impact how RfAs are done but I gather most do not even know about the RfA process, much less be aware that when there is an active one going on and how they can participate. Active Admins (I think there are about 700?) are disproportionately represented among users who weigh in on a RfA.

So, until those Admins realize a) that they are carrying too heavy of a load, b) that having more Admins will actually be a net gain to them personally, c) that for the future operations of en.wiki, more Admins will be needed as 1 or 2 new ones are added each month while more and more Admins become inactive, until these realizations happen, I don't think change is likely. And so, the number of active Admins will continue to drop and drop because fewer Editors want to subject themselves to the RfA process which often becomes more of a hazing than an informative interview. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it actually admins themselves being querulous on RFAs? Did the 2011 or any other study show this? - David Gerard (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Of the various RFA reform proposals I can think of one that tends to be opposed more strongly by admins than non-admins. I suspect this is the source of the "admins are blocking reform" meme, though I'd prefer a description of admins are blocking those proposals they believe would make things worse rather than admins are playing dog in a manger, but then I would wouldn't I. There was a study some years back as to RFA !voting by admins and non admins, as I remember it, it showed that admins at RFA were usually as supportive as non-admins. It would be good to repeat that, or at least to ask if anyone repeating that meme can point to an unsuccessful RFA that would have had consensus for promotion if all the admin !votes had been discounted. Ϣere SpielChequers 23:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe that 'current Admins have a stake in keeping the standards high and the barriers to entry arduous' - this is most likely a myth put about (partly) by those who believe to have wrongly failed at RfA or wannabe admins who feel the criteria are too severe. Generally speaking, I think admins provide the most thoughtful and objective comments at RfA. Moreover, several of the admins who are most concerned with the dearth of candidates have been actively scouring the users for candidates of the right calibre whom they can nominate for some considerable time, not to mention Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination - another project launched by an admin. The reading list at Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates includes all known users' RfA criteria, while VOTER PROFILES at RFA2011 has an enormous amount of research detail with a complete breakdown and analysis of who and how often users voted and whether they were admins or not, and the increase in participation of voters at RfA. Nothing has changed much since that time except that 100+ 'supports' are no way as rare as they used to be, but FWIW I suppose the regex could be re-run to update it. It would be good if people would refer to these important stats before positing hypotheses. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

In the 2011 study of votes, non-admins !voted support about 70% of the time, admins !voted support 76% of the time. (Support % calculated as Support divided by support plus oppose plus neutral). This pretty much puts a nail in the coffin of the idea that it is admins are the barrier to new admins.

Here are the basic facts of life, which apply to the OP (and to me — assuming I wanted to run the gauntlet, which I don't — and to dozens of others in the same boat)... RFA is a supermajority process, which means a motivated minority can sink a nomination. If one makes noise about controversial matters, one builds up a little fleet of "opponents." Add a misstep or two on the block log and it's pretty much curtains for passing a RFA. It doesn't matter if a person needs some of the tools for their work and not others; it's a unified package that includes The Nuclear Buttons — block and delete — and there's going to be high scrutiny for that. That's fair, I reckon. Bottom line is this: if one wants to be an Administrator, one needs to be perfectly bland and to keep the block log clean, both. Is that a fully rational requirement? Not really. But it's a fact. That's show biz. If there actually is a shortage of admins either (a) more frenetic efforts will be made to find and recruit perfectly bland candidates; and/or (b) the nuclear buttons will be separated from the rest of the tool kit and a more "chill" process instituted in lieu of the current RFA process. If no such shortage develops, things continue as they are now, with all that implies. Yeah, it sucks if you need some of the administrative abilities for your work; no, it's not fair. But that's the way it is. Carrite (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The thing about blocks, most legit reasons for a block raise a question of the blocked person's self restraint. If you couldn't restrain yourself when using the non-admin tools, are you going to be able to with them? I know that is a gross over simplification of the myriad reasons a person could get blocked, but it covers a surprising number of them. As for holding controversial opinions, most aren't much of an issue at RFA, instead, there are some RFA third rails, that can sink a request. The biggest ones are being overly deletionist, particularly with CSD, and showing authoritarian tendencies. Monty ₈₄₅ 04:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Admin covers everything from gnome work with the mop to making immensely complex decisions where mistakes do huge harm to people. Those things need to be split. The latter needs a high standard. Current admins have been keeping that from happening.....with an obvious conflict of interest on that question, they shouldn't even be weighing on on that question. And the process should be changed to have the discussions center on the required qualities, not the current criteria which rules out anyone who has ever taken a stand which some involved people disagreed with. North8000 (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

BTW, having the new admin process broken means that the overall standard is "got in when it was easy" North8000 (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

"Current admins have been keeping that from happening" - so far the evidence is the opposite. Do you have evidence (e.g., verifiable statistics) to support your claim? - David Gerard (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

My experience has been that each time it is brought it I see an admin shut down the discussion with a comment something like "that is an old idea which has been already reviewed and rejected" . Or when the conversation starts on whether such is happening an admin can chill or kill it by implying that concerns are unfounded / improper to express unless the person expressing them meets the impossibly high bar of having "verifiable statistics" of that concern as you just did. :-) :-) What realistically could satisfy the criteria of "verifiable statistics" of such? Conversely I know that just expressing the concern does not establish it as fact. North8000 (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Verifiable statistics were cited above in this discussion, so I disagree that it's an "impossibly high bar", unless you more generally consider the general requirement to supply some sort of evidence for controversial assertions inherently flawed - David Gerard (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Now you just switched to a different more reasonable bar. ("some sort of evidence"). The only thing unreasonable thing is you incorrectly implying that I objected to such a reasonable thing. North8000 (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of what some may want people to believe, there is almost nothing in the admin toolset that cannot be undone with a simple reversion. Its just not that big of a deal. So there is no reason whatsoever with guarding it like the Crown Jewels. And even as hard as it is to get rid of a bad admin, if they misuse the block tool, they would probably get their access yanked pretty fast. So really, all the hyperbole about people getting into mischief if they had access to the toolset is just hogwash. With all that said, no one believes anything will change regardless of how many times its brought up until a crisis ensues. That being either no admins being promoted for a prolonged period or too few active admins to accomplish the necessary tasks (which really has been the case for some time now given the length backlogs at many of the venues). The bottom line is, unless the community decides it needs to change the process or Jimbo and the WMF step up, its going to stay broke. 71.126.152.253 (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Blocks and deletions can in theory be easily reversed, but few are and their effects are not so easily resolved. When we block someone or reject their contribution by deleting it we risk losing that editor, so it is really important that we keep the block and delete buttons out of the hands of those who would use them in a heavyhanded way. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh please, there are already no less that a half dozen admins who delete mercilessly and no one is chomping at the bit to remove the tools from them. And as I already mentioned, if they abuse the tools then take them away. We are already driving away editors at an alarming rate. So the argument doesn't really hold water. Its just a poor justification for a bad policy. 71.126.152.253 (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me if we it was only half a dozen admins who are over eager with the delete button who accounted for a large part of the incorrect deletions at new page patrol. Though I suspect that incorrect tagging by some non-admins is as big a problem, maybe bigger - I'm pretty sure that merely tagging a goodfaith article for deletion is enough to drive away many newbies. Yes we are driving away editors at an alarming rate, roughly as fast as they are joining us. However whilst we can get a blocking minority, maybe even a majority to stop people who can be shown to consistently make errors in deletion tagging from becoming admins; I'm not sure we can get consensus to remove the bit from those admins who would be too deletionist to get consensus for the tools, and I'm not volunteering to monitor the deletions that others have done in order to address this issue. If someone does want to take this on, then the route is fairly straightforward, monitor enough deletions to spot the admins who are too heavy on the deletion button, politely raise the issue with them on their talkpage, and for those who don't come into line with policy escalate first to an RFC and if that doesn't work take it to Arbcom. Ϣere SpielChequers 05:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

@North8000 I can appreciate that it might look like the current admins "got in when it was easy", criteria inflation at RFA means that candidates need far more tenure and edits than was required in 04/07. But tighter criteria only means higher standards if they are the right criteria. In my opinion the shift in focus from checking candidate's edits to weighing their edit count and giving them an open book exam on policy means that RFA not only deters a lot of good candidates, but is probably less effective at screening out "bad" candidates than it used to be. Better in my view to consider it a situation where RFA is so broken that it cannot appoint sufficient admins to replace those who we lose. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The current criteria doesn't mean higher standards, the current criteria simply means that one cannot get involved in administrative stuff (because much of it is controversial) until after they get the tools. In order to be an admin, editors have to plan to be one and carefully monitor their actions and their activity so they don't ruffle any feathers. All it takes is one misstep or to bump into an admin with a chip on their shoulder about some article they wrote ten years ago that they "own" and you won't get the tools. That is not how the system should work. RFA is a broken system and virtually everyone knows. Its time to stop justifying it and protecting it and fix it so I completely agree with your last sentence. Let's be honest. Any editor who has been here a few years or has a few thousand edits and has a history of knowing policy should be able to get the tools if they want them. If they abuse it then the beauro's can take them away. Its just that easy, bottom line. We need to let people help the project. Not give excuses why we don't want or need their help. This project needs all the help it can get these days. If that means the WMF and Jimbo have to get back involved with the RFA process for a while as a reviewer and hand out the tools then so be it. The community has shown that we can't do it effectively. Jimbo said a year ago he was going to do something, where is it? 71.126.152.253 (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko, your bitterness at the RfA process is epic. Naturally four failed RfA attempts[3][4][5][6] will do that. I think in your case the community performed effectively, keeping a moody and unpredictable character out of a responsible position. Thank goodness a simple calculation of edit count and time period are not enough to acquire the tools. Binksternet (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yea, when you're pretty much the Buffalo Bills of RfA, it may be time to hang it up and quit trying. Tarc (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

@IP There are two controversial areas to avoid if you plan to run for RFA in the next few months; Anything that involves blocking or unblocking the regulars, and anything borderline at deletion. Other admin like activities, especially correct AIV reports and even cautious CSD tagging are actually treated as a positive. If a candidate has over 100 correct AIV reports the community won't oppose because they don't need the tools, for a candidate like that to fail they'd need a recent block or zero content contributions or some other reason to reject them. But candidates can and do get rejected for completely avoiding admin like activity, I don't personally agree with "no need for the tools" as a reason to oppose, however sufficient others differ that I'd always counsel any candidate to be able to demonstrate one or two areas where they are already tagging things for admins to action. But the reality isn't quite as bad as you seem to think, opposes over old grudges from more than a year ago need some sort of evidence that the concerns are still current, otherwise they carry little weight with the RFA crowd.

As for Jimmy intervening, I suspect that he's waiting for the system to more clearly fail first. All it would need would be the press noticing one vandal on a bit of a rampage during an hour when no admin was at AIV and the WMF will be pretty much forced to step in. My hope is still that we will be able to fix things ourselves without intervention from above, but I'm not putting money on it. When we do get a solution I agree with some of what you say, if we are going to work with the grain of the community we need to make the change so that RFA looks more like a less dysfunctional part of our system like Rollback, FAC or even AFD. First we should User:WereSpielChequers/RFA_reform#Agree_a_criteria_for_adminship\agree a criteria for adminship then in individual RFAs we discuss whether the candidate meets that criteria. Where I disagree with you is over making this about edit count and tenure, there are plenty of problematic things that we should check for at RFA. Alternatively we could unbundle a limited block right that restricted the blocking and unblocking of the regulars to crats and full admins. Do that and we could keep going this way for years. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

While RFA is certainly not without its problems, if it's really as 'broken' and 'impossible to pass' as critics claim, how come two candidates passed with unanimous support in the past month alone? RFA has never been an obstacle for clearly suitable admin candidates. Most of the time, it does ultimately reach the right decision. The real issue is finding and convincing more suitable candidates to run in the first place. Robofish (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

It should also be noted that one individual who passed by unanimous support has never done much admin work. The don't comment at ANI, they don't work at CCI, TFD, CFD, AFD or Articles for Improvement. Neither really appear to need the tools and it appears that they are just hat collectors. I would be willing to bet neither one could edit very many of the protected templates or Wikimedia pages they now have access too. Both are ultra conservative and neither is likely to rock the boat or attempt any sort of real improvement to the structure or policy of the project. That's what got them promoted. They stay in their swim lane and don't upset the order of things. Its just 2 more editors who got promoted that probably won't even use the tools. The admin toolset is no big deal, it never has been and never will be. The reason we have all the back logs is because its been made into a cliche'. We need to get away from that and allow people to help. 71.126.152.253 (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko, I would worry about you engaging in wheel wars if you got some part of the tools. You have demonstrated a retributive personality, engaging in personal attacks and harassment. Binksternet (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Bullshit, being vocal against abusive users, several of which having the admin toolset and who their POV and violate policy is not harassment. Harassment is an admin that follows the same user around, watching their every edit until they find something they can block them for. I anyone here is harassing anyone its you constantly griping about my comments and making snide comments. At least I am trying to make the place better by advocating for change and bringing attention to the problems. What have you done? 71.126.152.253 (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Robofish, it's not the fact that 2 Editors successfully passed their RfAs. It's that if you look at past history (and I wish I had that table at hand), five years ago, there'd be a dozen successful RfAs and over a 100 new Admins every year. Old, inactive Admins are being desysoped at a rate of 5-10 a month so the increase in new Admins is not keeping up with the decrease in Admins. There are, what 1700 or so Admins on en.wiki and less than 50% of them are active? Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with me about too high standards (especially compared to pre-2007), if you look at the trend, there will be fewer and fewer Admins as the months and years go by because they aren't replacing themselves.

And that is just taking into account Admins who are being desysoped because they quit back in 2010 and are part of the three years of inactivity desysoping plan. Every month there are currently active Admins who either get burned out or retire.

So, forget about the personalities that you may or may not disagree with in this particular conversation. The bottom line is that if these trends continue into the future, there will be fewer and fewer Admins handling more and more responsibilities. The workload and backlog will most likely continue to grow. As long as that is okay with y'all, you've got no reason to advocate for change. If you want more volunteers to help share the workload, pick up the slack, well, the ball is in your court. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed and there are about 1405 admins and the 50% number is roughly correct depending on how you define active. Also, its the same 50 or so that do the vast majority of the admin work. If even that many, probably more like 20 or 30. 71.126.152.253 (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes at any one time we rely on a small number of active administrators for most admin activity. But it isn't the same admins who are active each month, we have about fifty admins and former admins who have made over 33,000 logged admin actions each and hundreds more who have made over a thousand logged actions. My experience is that most active editors who become admins will go on to make a useful number of admin actions. That's why I don't regard "no use for the tools" as sensible reason to oppose, though I'm conscious that if someone doesn't make a coherent case as to what they will use the tools for they won't get through RFA. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Ϣere SpielChequers, I've found JamesR's AdminStats interesting but I wish they were broken down by month and weren't cumulative...that would reveal more information about how many Admins were very active at different points in the year. I've posted questions on the Talk Page about this but it doesn't look like questions there get any response from James. It could be a system he set up a while ago that runs on its own. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Adminship table of yearly counts

Okay, here is the table I was referring to:

Shortcut

WP:RBM

Successful requests for adminship on the English Wikipedia^[1]
Year	Month												Mean	Passes	Fails^{[N 1]}	RfAs^{[N 2]}
Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Mean	Passes	Fails^{[N 1]}	RfAs^{[N 2]}
2024	2	2	0	0									1	4	1	5
2023	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	2	1	1	2	1	1	12	7	19
2022	0	1	2	1	1	0	0	4	1	2	0	2	1.2	14	6	20
2021	1	1	0	0	2	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	0.6	7	4	11
2020	4	1	2	0	3	0	1	1	3	1	0	1	1.4	17	8	25
2019	2	1	0	1	1	0	3	4	1	4	2	3	1.8	22	9	31
2018	0	1	1	1	0	2	1	0	1	2	0	1	0.8	10	8	18
2017	9	1	0	1	2	0	3	0	1	2	1	1	1.8	21	20	41
2016	0	1	1	1	3	0	2	1	1	1	1	4	1.3	16	20	36
2015	2	2	1	0	3	2	2	3	0	1	3	2	1.8	21	32	53
2014	3	1	4	3	2	1	1	1	0	0	5	1	1.8	22	38	60
2013	4	5	5	1	3	3	3	1	3	2	1	3	2.8	34	39	73
2012	1	3	1	3	1	1	6	4	0	1	5	2	2.3	28	64	92
2011	3	9	9	3	6	4	4	1	4	3	2	4	4.3	52	87	139
2010	6	7	2	8	8	6	7	13	6	7	4	1	6.3	75	155	230
2009	6	9	13	14	12	12	10	11	8	7	13	6	10.1	121	234	355
2008	36	27	22	12	16	18	16	12	6	16	11	9	16.8	201	392	593
2007	23	35	31	30	54	35	31	18	34	27	56	34	34.0	408	512	920
2006	44	28	34	36	30	28	26	26	22	27	33	19	29.5	353	543	896
2005	14	9	16	25	17	28	31	39	32	67	41	68	32.3	387	213	600
2004	13	14	31	20	23	13	17	12	29	16	27	25	20.0	240	63	303
2003	2	2	8	6	10	24	11	9	17	10	9	15	10.3	123	n/a^{[N 3]}	123
2002	^{[N 4]}						3	4	0	0	3	1	3.7	44	n/a^{[N 3]}	44
Totals														2233	2453	4686^{[N 5]}


Key
0 successful RFAs	26–30 successful RFAs
1–5 successful RFAs	31–35 successful RFAs
6–10 successful RFAs	36–40 successful RFAs
11–15 successful RFAs	41–50 successful RFAs
16–20 successful RFAs	51–60 successful RFAs
21–25 successful RFAs	More than 60 successful RFAs

Notes

Originally sourced from User:NoSeptember/Admin stats#Year to year comparison of promotions by months, copied here and colour-coded. Updates from Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological)

Early 2003 from User:NoSeptember/RfA_chronological

Notes

^ Online only. By 2015 admins had started deleting "NotNow" RFAs which artificially reduces the unsuccessful figure
^ Except unsuccessful ones by email.
^ ^a ^b Early RFAs were done by email and only the successes are known
^ 33 had been appointed in early 2002
^ Figures for unsuccessfuls for 2002 to 2003 are not available

References

^ Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship

See also

Wikipedia:Desysoppings by month - similar list but for number of desysops per month

So, if this looks healthy, y'all, then no arguments from other people will convince you otherwise. These are the numbers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's how the numbers look the other way around as well. — Scott • talk 10:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Shortcut

WP:DBM

Desysoppings (removals of adminship) on the English Wikipedia^[a]
Year	Month												Monthly mean	Total removals	Total restorations^[b]	Total elections	Yearly change in admins
Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Monthly mean	Total removals	Total restorations^[b]	Total elections	Yearly change in admins
2024	7	7	4	4	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	5.5	22	1	4	-17
2023	104^[c]	2	1	4	3	8	4	4	12	1	6	3	12.6	152	4	12	-136
2022	5	7	4	5	8	7	3	3	3	11	4^[d]	11	5.9	71	8	14	-49
2021	5	6	3	2	10	6	6	2	6	5	6	7	5.3	64	4	7	-53
2020	10	3	4	3	4	3	4	5	7	5	6	4	4.8	58	7	17	-34
2019	4	12	6	4	10	29^[e]	7	4	3	3	8	5	7.9	95	28	22	-45
2018	6	9	6	8	5	6	0	6	7	2	9	9	6	73	13	10	-50
2017	5	9	8	9	8	1	9	7	6	10	6	0	6.5	78	23	21	-34
2016	9	9	4	10	5	6	10	7	2	13	6	7	7.3	88	15	16	-57
2015	11	8	7	6	11	4	5	6	6	10	7	4	7	85	26	21	-38
2014	9	5	4	11	0	4	4	8	9	7	6	13	6.6	80	16	22	-42
2013	10	8	9	7	4	6	5	5	4	7	8	9	6.8	82	28	34	-20
2012	10	4	23	22	15	15	10	5	6	5	15	7	11.4	137	42	28	-67
2011	1	4	2	0	2	2	230^[f]	2	18	7	10	4	23.5	282	26	52	-204
2010	4	0	2	3	4	1	2	1	1	2	1	2	1.9	23	23	75	+75
2009	3	2	4	1	5	6	3	6	5	1	2	1	3.2	39	28	121	+110
2008	3	4	3	0	3	2	5	0	2	1	1	4	2.3	28	23	201	+196
2007	2	4	2	1	9	3	3	1	0	2	4	3	2.8	34	21	408	+395
2006	1	4	1	1	1	2	2	2	6	3	2	5	2.5	30	9	353	+332
2005	1	0	0	0	1	0	3	0	0	0	2	4	0.9	11	6	387	+382
2004	1	2	1	1	0	0	2	1	2	0	1	0	0.9	11	2	240	+231
2003	0	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0.3	4	0	123	+119
2002	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	44	+44


Key
0 desysoppings	16–18 desysoppings
1–3 desysoppings	19–22 desysoppings
4–6 desysoppings	23–27 desysoppings
7–9 desysoppings	28–36 desysoppings
10–12 desysoppings	37–48 desysoppings
13–15 desysoppings	More than 48 desysoppings

Notes

^ Figures don't include bots (21) or renames/secondary accounts where the user was still an administrator afterwards (14). Many short-lived temporary desysops and extremely rapid desysopping/resysopping cycles (in the order of seconds/minutes) that do not involve controversial circumstances or account compromises, such as This brief test and this mistaken desysop, are not included either.
^ For clarity, restorations (resysoppings) are shown as aggregate yearly figures based on the listing at Wikipedia:List of resysopped users, and "transfers of account", re-sysoppings through RFA, and most cases where adminship was removed and re-added within a calendar year (especially before 2015) are not included.
^ The extremely large number of desysoppings in January 2023 is due to the beginning of the new criterion for desysopping of inactive administrators.
^ The inactive admins for November 2022 were desysopped on 31 October of that year.
^ The large number of desysoppings in June 2019 is due to the community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram.
^ The extremely large number of desysoppings in July 2011 is due to the beginning of regular desysopping for inactivity.

Visualization

Not even considering how many admins will tackle workload: The above table shows the impending doom, unless some tools are provided to non-admin users. There have been new admins this year, but not all intend to systematically reduce the wp:BACKLOG of admin requests, such as help with editing protected pages in CAT:EP. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Nothing short of a gigantic increase in admin numbers will fix this, because the reality is that admin work is mostly horrendously boring. The small number of Stakhanov admins doing a large amount of it have rare stamina and should not be considered the norm. There is only one way to radically increase the number of admins, and that is trust and understanding. Stop requiring admin candidates to be perfect individuals who know how to do everything and want to do it, and trust that they will do what they can, and when they can, and teach themselves to do the things they don't currently know how to do; understand that they may make mistakes, and trust that they will learn from them; trust them not to do any harm, and understand that it will be swiftly fixed if they do (it is virtually impossible to do any damage as an admin. In fact, causing damage gets more difficult with every single new admin). Without a radical increase of trust and understanding to sweep away the clutter and paranoia of what RfA has become, then yes, we are doomed. — Scott • talk 10:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

If the nine non-admins participating in this discussion were to run for office, we might get a boost in sales for the year. What exactly is stopping them? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Because most wouldn't pass. Most have tried and failed already. It should also be noted that if they ran under today's standards most admins wouldn't even pass. 71.126.152.253 (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, that's funny! There is no way I'd survive an RfA! I've looked at your Criteria for RfA Candidates and they are completely intimidating. I think maybe 0.0001% of Editors would have even 50% of your desired experience on Wikipedia. I'm skeptical that there is even one candidate who could check off all of those items. None of your criteria are outrageous, it is just the accumulated number of qualifications, the sum total of depth and breadth of experience (with no false steps) that would eliminate almost anyone who would think about going for a RfA.

But I don't mean to single you out. You just wrote down how you evaluate candidates. Most people who participate in RfA probably have similar lists they just don't write them down. At least you are upfront about your expectations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I doubt Kudpung expects every candidate to meet all of his criteria to get his support, and in at least one area he is probably stricter than the consensus. My own criteria are here, I've tried to indicate those areas where I would support, but not expect the candidate to pass. Conversely I am one of the most cautious !voters when it comes to deletion - on pretty much every occasion where I have been in the oppose section for someone who has passed RFA it has been because I suspect they might be heavy handed with the deletion button. I believe that hundreds of our 3,000 most active editors could easily pass RFA if they were to run. Hundreds more could pass in a month or two if they were to work on a few things or avoid the common RFA pitfalls, almost all could pass within months if they worked at it. Most of those hundreds would not get the hundred plus supports and zero opposes that some recent candidates have had - but that is part of the tragedy of RfA, it has acquired such a fearsome reputation that many don't run until they are ridiculously over qualified. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Criteria too strict about AfD of creations: I think Kudpung's ideal rule is impossibly too strict for: "No CSD, PROD, or AfD notices for own creations 6 months preceding RfA". Many people create several articles during a year, and some people just send new pages to AfD without checking for notability in related sources. For me, I had former Template:Cite_quick sent to TfD once, where it survived as invaluable to correctly format article "Barack Obama" (+others) before the U.S. 2012 Presidential Election, but then re-sent to TfD #2, where it was axed (archived as {Citation/quick}) despite allowing more cites per page than the wp:CS1 Lua cites. So even when a page survives an XfD, it might be re-sent a year later based on questionable reasoning. Restricting an RfA due to other people submitting AfDs is too severe. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I have always openly admitted that my criteria are probably among the most strict, but as WereSpielChequers says, in reality I don't apply them that rigorously and I work on a basis of an aggregate (more activity in some areas compensates for a lack in others). I've voted on almost every RfA since February 2010, matched the result oveall in 82.62 of the times, and 32% of my votes were 'oppose'. I very occasionally do not vote on an RfA where the outcome is going to be blatantly clear. My supports have steadily increased since we began to get fewer SNOWS and NOTNOWS from inexperienced users, in fact over the last 100 RfA I supported it is 91.08%. One well known user has repeatedly made snide attacks around the site that I am hell bent on doing away with oppose votes altogether - this couldn't be further from the truth. Over the years I have canvassed dozens of users who meet my criteria and nearly all of them have declined for the same reason. I passed, (first time) my own criteria when I ran and although my own RfA was particularly nasty (at least one admin who voted there has since been desyoped) I passed with relatively flying colours. What we need to remember though is that many potential candidates have a successful career behind them, have grown a thick skin, and have nothing to boast about in the schoolyard.

What I look for in candidates are the things that possibly many voters find hardest to evaluate: interaction. with others, sense of judgement, and maturity. Like WereSpielChequers, I pay a lot of attention to a candidate's CSD/PROD/AfD work because this is one area where the tools are probably used most. Anyone who ran and failed and who persists in insisting that the process is broken is possibly harbouring a grudge, while others who feel they would certainly not pass although they may check the statistical criteria, may need to refine their interaction with others.

For those who are not yet aware, I first became interested in what admins are after having been bullied by a two or three which led me to find out why they had ever been promoted in the first place. Needless to say, some of them are admins no more. Among more recent desysops, I said the writing was on the wall quite a while back. What is not being mentioned here is the number of admins who have handed their tools in over the last 12 months (and we've lost another in last 24 ours). They were among our most popular and respected sysops. Something is clearly wrong. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

So in your opinion Kudpung. If an experienced, high output editor who most agree knows what they are doing, leaves the site because the community won't let them have access to the tools, is that a win for the site, or a loss? It seems like a loss to me. Since this happens fairly frequently after a failed RFA, it seems like its actually better that more don't try. Because if they did, we would probably have more leave when they find out what the community thinks of all their hard work and dedication to the project. 71.126.152.253 (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Based upon high activity at this page and at wt:rfa I thought there was interest in doing something about the problem. So I proposed doing something about it, either specifically:

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#A_Different_approach

or generally:

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Any_interest_in_a_Wikiproject.3F.

The proposals were met by a resounding yawn (with minor exceptions). I now conclude I misread the sense of the community, and the community is very interested in whining, but not actually doing anything. Am I wrong?--SPhilbrick (Talk) 23:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

No I think you are exactly right. The community in general doesn't care and that has been a recurring problem for some time now. As has been mentioned before. The majority of those who pay attention to this problem are experienced users and most of those are admins, many of which don't want the system to change. I also think a contributing factor to the silence is that it has come up so often and had so little result, most probably feel like there is no point in commenting. 71.126.152.253 (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

@71.126.152.253 : "…high output editor who most agree knows what they are doing, leaves the site because the community won't let them have access to the tools…" are just throwing their hobby out of their pram. They are needed here and they have no reason not to continue providing good content. I do not belive that admins do not want to see the sytem changed or improved (stats please) - in fact most users who have participated objectively in such discussions rather than heckling from the sidelines are admins.

@SPhilbrick: "the community is very interested in whining, but not actually doing anything", There is certainly some truth in that - if anyone wants some stats, just count the comments over the years at WT:RfA. Some of the community does care though, and to reiterate for the nth time, ironically most of the actions for reform were launched and/or supported by admins and most clearly with a view to getting more new admins on board rather than excluding candidates as some contend.

If the community didn't care, there wouldn't be 2,821 watching the page at WT:RfA, 2,847 participants, and 64,213 edits on it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

If the community doesn't trust them, then naturally people aren't going to stay. This is a volunteer project and people participate where they are interested. If someone is interested in content creation then that's great, if they aren't interested in that area though and want to help out in other areas, then they should be allowed to grow and learn new things. Not held back out of Assumptions of bad faith. Anyway, I' obviously wasting my time with this argument. In order to be an admin one must set out a plan to do so and ensure they don't buck the system. The bottom line though is that the system is broken and needs to be fixed. I don't believe it will happen until Wikiedia administration reaches a crisis point (which can already be seen by the backlogs at many venues). So at some point the community will either need to accept help where its given or accept growing backlogs and a reduced service to the readers. When the community and the WMF starts to care about its readers again, then things may change. 71.126.152.253 (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, one of the requirements to the administrators is that they do not consider being an administrator to be the main motivation for their wiki presence. Bossing productive editors by the "career administrators" having little interests in building the encyclopedia is one of the main reasons of pushing productive editors out. One bad administrator can drive out plenty of highly productive contributors often leaving a whole subject area bare. People editing wiki are usually anonymous, it is normal to not trust anonymous people and we are putting a great deal of effort (at least in the article space) to build a system that usually does not require us to trust people but to validate their entries with reliable sources, it should not drive people out. Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think a lot of the current admins think like that. I could name several that rarely do anything else except admin stuff. Besides that's not really what I am saying anyway. If you tell an experienced editor enough times they aren't trusted and or wanted, they will leave. Its happened many times before. Its especially disheartening when there are so many abusive admins already who are allowed to keep the tools and when there are so many that just get the tools and never use them. Every month we lose more editors than we gain (in both inactivity and in desysoppings). It doesn't take a math wiz to see at some point in the near future that will be a problem. 71.126.152.253 (talk) 11:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Adminship broadens wiki access to protected pages

At the core of many frustrations is the lock-down of protected pages, where admins can access so much more. At the Help:Desk, it would be useful to look at a user's deleted article to explain, in detail, why it failed the WP policies for inclusion. Also, many, many thousands of templates are protected against update by non-admin users. Overall, as several people have commented: "This isn't a wiki any longer". Having to continually request permission (for *everything*) has turned WP into a bureaucracy of bureaucratic rules, which many of us have learned to tolerate, but it is not fun, no. So, many people leave due to restricted access to pages. Or, we try wp:RfA to get long-term permission to access Wikipedia as if it were still a wiki, rather than a system of expanding lock-down where templates have gone unfixed for years. Instead, a system of trusted-user levels should have been developed, early, to allow several levels of access controls to different types of protected pages. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree. Your assessment that this isn't a Wiki anymore nor is it fun is right on. I also agree that having multiple levels of access would be beneficial but I think we need to get back to a point where we trust our editors again. We have too much content blocked, too many Ip's blocked, too much beauracracy is needed to make a simple change and too much work for too few people. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I was also saying, above, to have more levels of trusted-user access, where most active editors would be trusted to edit many pages without admin help. In essence, the highly active editors would be editing a wiki system, again, where almost all pages were open to them, but still protected against unknown newcomers, where the rate of vandalism has been astonishing at times. -Wikid77 18:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

This isn't for the most part a problem of protected pages, relatively few articles are fully protected, the bar for editing semi-protected ones is very low and judging by WP:UNPROTECT there aren't many requests to unprotect fully protected pages. Much more pressing is the issue of access to deleted edits, and there we don't have the equivalent of semi protection. I would prefer that we solve this by maintaining and ideally increasing the number of admins. I'm sure there are people at helpdesk who could easily pass RFA even in its current broken shape. Of course if one did and only used the tools to make unlogged actions such as viewing deleted edits then they'd join that small minority of admins who appear to have rarely if ever used the tools. Other reasons why there appear to be a significant minority of admins who have rarely if ever used the tools include; User:JamesR/AdminStats has a few anomalies such as when there is a history merge involving a protected and an unprotected page, so a number of people listed as making one admin action are people like Bazonka who have never actually been admins. Also I'm fairly sure it doesn't have access to pre Dec 2004 logs, so an admin who was active in 02/03 would be listed as a former admin with zero actions. Going back to the problem, we already have the researcher right which gives some access to deleted contribs. I doubt if the community would be opposed to unbundling view delete for people who needed the right. The contentious thing within the community is usually about whether things should be deleted, legal has been clear that you would still need an RFA equivalent process to establish that someone could be trusted with this right, but if they could neither delete pages nor block people then I can see the community being much more willing to trust those with a convincing need to view deleted edits with the right to do so. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Oversimplification misfires

The first oversimplification / misfire is to think that metric of any split should be by tools. In reality it should be by roles. Right now having the toolbox makes one the (only) type who can decide/close very difficult RFC's, decide difficult situations and decide to impose sanctions against editors. That combination with gnome tools/roles is absolutely crazy; the latter types of things should be split off by role/policy, not by tools in the toolbox.

The second oversimplification / misfire is thinking that there is only one dial (degree of easiness / hardness) that needs adjustment at RFA. What it really needs is tools to make it a qualities based discussion rather than the current misfire test which essentially is largely "have you avoided taking any stands that some people didn't like". North8000 (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Right now having the toolbox makes one the (only) type who can decide/close very difficult RFC's, decide difficult situations - I don't think this quite true actually. Non-admins can certainly close many contentious discussions, many of which get listed at WP:ANRFC. Personally speaking, I've done closes of contentious issues at Adolf Hitler, and Shooting of Trayvon Martin, and Monty Hall problem (a triumverate close) without any concerns from others about my involvement. Not many non-admins contribute there, maybe because they don't think they are allowed to, or maybe because they don't want to deal with with folks who disagree with their closes, or maybe they just don't feel prepared or have enough time to devote to the task. (Of course, not many admins contribute there, either). In any case, my point is that non-admins can definitely close contentious issues (except for deletion). I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Usually on those I've seen that for whoever it didn't go their way they say "we need an admin close on this" even though (given your experience) you probably did a wiser close than the average admin would do. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Still, the concept of tool-privileges granted for various maintenance roles is a good method for controlling the access. -Wikid77 18:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

North8000 is onto it. There is an "law enforcer" aspect of the toolbox (blocking, page protection, revision deletion) that should be very carefully scrutinized, very limited in distribution. There is a "technical" aspect of the tool box (page moving, deletion, ability to read deleted files) that has virtually nothing to do with the former and should be "No Big Deal." As it stands, there are page patrollers, vandal fighters, and gnome editors without access to tools they need because it's an all-or-nothing situation, requiring extremely high scrutiny. Carrite (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

It isn't that simple. The ability to see deleted material means that one has the ability to see material"hidden" and in violation of copyright. There's less of that material now that we regularly revdel, but I don't believe we've gone back and revdeled all prior G12 deletions. That has legal implications, which requires limitations on the number with the right and is a far bigger deal than a local decision about who can block others. That said, it does hint at a way to separate the tools. If we do rigorously devdel any material with legal implications, G12, and libel, for example, then the ability to see deleted material would be much less of a deal, and could be handed out a little easier. I've argued before for an unbundling between the ability to delete and the ability to see deleted material (write versus read/write, a distinction common in databases). We could accomplished it with a little cleanup of the past.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 20:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually it pretty much is that easy. No one is saying we should give every single editor unlimited access. What we are saying, at least most of us, is that established users who are active in the project be allowed to help. Here is why the arguments of deleted content needing to be restricted for legal reasons are 99% bullshit. First, we already have over 1400+ admins with visibility, so that is a lot. Second, most of the admins don't use their real name and the WMF doesn't require them to provide it for adminship. Lastly, even if the primary purpose of deleting the content is so it doesn't appear in the articles, doesnt generate in internet searches and doesn't violate copyright law. Allowing established users to see it doesn't violate any of that. Because the editors who are seeing it are not the ones who are coming to the project to "see" the article the copywritten information was on. They are here to help build the articles and the project. So the arguments of hiding the data is just a justification to keep useful editors from contributing so we can maintain the us and them mentality between the admins and editors. Without a heirarchy the admin wouldn't have any power. 71.126.152.253 (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

There are some !voters at RFA who mainly worry about candidates who might be quick to block people, and especially some of them don't want people who haven't themselves contributed content to have the button that lets them block content contributors. Others see the big risk as over enthusiastic deletion. There are solutions that most might accept, for example upbundling blocks and unblocks of the regulars to crats, or unbundling "block newbie" to experienced vandalfighters. But any solution that made it easier to block the regulars or that gave the bit to people with a record of sloppy deletion tagging would struggle to get consensus. Ϣere SpielChequers 23:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is an interesting comparison; by my calculations roughly 40% of the commercial aircraft in use today contain at least one part where I am the engineer who signed off on the design being safe for flight. Most of these involved electronics or hydraulics controlling flight control surfaces such as ailerons, elevators and rudders. I have also signed off on the safety for several children's toys that sold in the millions. Yet I am pretty sure that I would not pass an RfA. In other words, you trust me with your life and the life of your children, but (if I am correct about not passing an RfA), not with the admin tools. Now it is true that those engineering decisions all got reviewed multiple times, but any use of admin tools in the areas that could cause a lot of harm to the encyclopedia would no doubt be reviewed as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Pharma companies exempt from Bright Line Rule?

Jimbo, one of Wikipedia's admins who also happens to be a doctor working on WikiProject:Medicine said the following:

"Dear Pharma Companies... we advise you to employ a Wikipedia editor if you want to make sure only evidence-based information is included in entries about your own products. Appointing someone from within your company as a 'spokesperson' in Wikipedia who would perform all edits on behalf of the company is an excellent way to update those entries."

Are we to assume that Dr. Bertalan Meskó is interpreting your Bright Line Rule somewhat loosely, or is there an exception for pharmaceutical companies, because of their expertise in ensuring evidence-based information? - 68.87.42.110 (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

In practice, there is no "bright line rule". The community decided that it's OK for BP's public-relations department to draft substantial portions of our coverage of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. ArbCom decided that it's OK for employees of the Transcendental Meditation movement to insert (often highly dubious) claims about the health benefits of TM into our articles. (Frankly, the way that the TM editors spin the medical literature to promote their product is virtually analogous to the way drug reps use the literature to sell their wares). This is a natural consequence of the precedents we've set—or more accurately, failed to set—for dealing with conflicts of interest. Why would you expect a pharmaceutical company to show greater restraint than we've demanded in the BP or TM cases?

(Separately, I don't think Bertalan is saying what you think he's saying. I think he means "employ" in the sense of "work with" rather than "hire and pay a salary", but you might wish to ask him for clarification directly). MastCell ^Talk 02:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

While I agree with you of course about some errors that have been made in the past, but I encourage you not to say things like "In practice, there is no 'bright line rule'." Such a statement will be twisted by people who do not agree with you to suggest that you think that it's ok for POV pushers to edit Wikipedia articles directly. A better statement might be "Going forward, we should begin to vigorously enforce the "bright line rule" as a bare minimum expectation of behavior from editors with a financial conflict of interest, including big Pharma, big Oil, employees of religious movements, etc." Don't give up the good fight - make it consensus that we will do the right thing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Currently we have only WP:NOPAY that says If either of the following applies to you:...then you are very strongly discouraged from editing Wikipedia in areas where those external relationships could reasonably be said to undermine your ability to remain neutral. It is not exactly a bright line rule. Everybody caught in pay editing can say that a) it is not forbidden but only discouraged, b) they believe the external relations did not affect their ability to make neutral edits (experienced wikipedians know how to make biased edits that appear to be neutral). So we either have to make the changes to the policy ASAP or admit that we do not have the bright rule regarding paid editing. In my own opinion if we at least make a bright line that any potential COI must be acknowledged then it will be helpful and enforceable Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

user:NCurse has not been very active recently, and has not interacted with WikiProject Medicine for over a year, so it's a bit misleading to describe him as a "doctor working on WikiProject:Medicine". The ideas he stated in that post are not consistent with what most members of WPMED would view as good practices. Looie496 (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, and there is no "pharma" exception to the bright line rule.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that you are speaking of a bright line "rule" and not actual governing policy or guidelines of the encyclopedia... Carrite (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Med Foundation] is here to collaborate with organizations that share our goals. The pharmaceutical industry, unfortunately at this point in time has made it clear that they do not. There is no official collaborations and I personally have declined offers. I am not for sale at any price. I am happy to investigate any cases people come across. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I want to emphasize that Bartalan (User:NCurse) has an exceptional and unblemished record as a contributor here, and has done a lot to help build WP:MED into an exemplary WikiProject (and into one of the few aspects of Wikipedia that actually generates positive publicity for the project). There's never been any indication that his editing is motivated by anything other than a desire to provide free, high-quality medical information. Before anyone starts treating him as a de facto pharma shill, they owe him the courtesy of talking to him directly and asking him to clarify. MastCell ^Talk 17:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes thanks. Agree and have only seen positive from Bartalan. Will drop him a note to clarify what he means. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

All in favor of asking Bertalan about what he wrote, but in my opinion there is nothing confusing or ambiguous about his advice: "Dear Pharma Companies... we advise you to employ a Wikipedia editor if you want to make sure only evidence-based information is included in entries about your own products. Appointing someone from within your company as a 'spokesperson' in Wikipedia who would perform all edits on behalf of the company is an excellent way to update those entries." How will he possibly back-pedal from that? - 2001:558:1400:10:6CDA:AD4F:2207:8B09 (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. Why don't you ask him? It's literally the least you could do. MastCell ^Talk 17:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Because Doc James just said above that he would drop a note to Bartalan. Do we really need multiple Wikipedians contacting the doctor about the same thing? - 2001:558:1400:10:6CDA:AD4F:2207:8B09 (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Writing tools which people want

All the turmoil about the VisualEditor has reaffirmed a major aspect of software development: write tools which the users want, not something imagined to be useful. After removal from the top menu, when VE became an opt-in feature under Special:Preferences, the usage has dropped to almost 0%, as about 2-to-5 edits per thousand. Although there has been much anger about the WMF decisions, I want to emphasize how writing of unused software has been a common problem in other computer systems for decades. Many computer people often zone-inward (in a form of "navel gazing") to focus intensely on problems which many people do not think are important. I recently read comments about the old wikitext source editor being a convoluted implementation, and then thought, "Oh no, I hope they don't rewrite the typical wikitext editor to run like VE!". Of course, wp:edit-conflicts are a real, major problem in common talk-pages, or busy hot-topic articles, but unless developers think like users, they would rather sub-optimize the ultra-mega-gadgetry which they see, everyday, rather than upset their worldview by focusing on needs of users. Again, it is not an exclusive problem of WMF but rather an "age-old" problem in the development of computer technology. Anyway, based on those issues, I am wondering: what can be done to get the Foundation to focus on writing tools which people want? -Wikid77 (talk) 04:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

As you note, VE has essentially gone Hindenburg — buggy software was forced upon users and it was rejected. Is there anything salvageable from the effort? That remains to be seen. The unfortunate thing is that WMF seems to have failed to learn from its mistakes and is intent upon remaking the wheel for talk pages with their so-called "Flow" software. Rather than working out software issues through testing and then road-testing the beta in an out-of-the-way corner of the multi-language Wikipedia project, will they once again rush to impose bad software upon En-WP? I have very grave misgivings. Carrite (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

That seems a valid concern, as WMF has a track record of long-term momentum to push its agenda of re-inventing the wheel, regardless of resistance. The response to the VE RfC, to make-VE-opt-in, did sound like, "So anyway, here is the next forced VE upgrade" and at that level of wp:IDHT, then there is little evidence of any change in other plans. Of course, similar problems have occurred with local transition to Lua script modules, as mostly re-inventing the same templates, with little innovation for new ideas. -Wikid77 12:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

A while back on VP there was a thread asking about HTML signatures. Someone promptly responded "we are working on a fix for that with Flow". And I almost wanted to say, "No, the WMF is trying to shove a fix down our throats, the same as with VE." Projects like VE and Flow are shortsighted missions intended to revamp a system that was never broken. Rather than waste time and money on such projects, why couldn't the WMF just fix the current system and get rid of a lot of bugs? It sure seems like a lot better solution than the massive failure that was VE. KonveyorBelt 16:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the best plan would be to expect the worst, and be prepared, this time, to quickly bypass wp:FLOW when there are numerous problems, rather than everyone drop all plans for the month and focus on bugfixes to make FLOW as useable as VE was. Fortunately, VE could be/was ignored by over 94% of users, eventually by 99.7%, but perhaps the plans to force use of FLOW will be more strict, and there will be a greater need for "talk-page lifeboats" to allow users to still discuss issues, without garbled nowiki-tag phrases or FLOW cratering and losing messages which were "too large" to save. Meanwhile, it seems as though Wikipedians are able to create some valuable tools, even if smaller, but at least provide some new functionality. -Wikid77 12:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Reading between the lines, it sounds like they are planning to "roll out" Flow on a piecemeal basis rather than flipping a switch and making it the default for all talk pages. If true, this is a correct approach. It may be that Flow turns out to be a perfectly fine thing for big "hot" talk pages (Lady Gaga, etc.) but is an enormous thorn for the 99% of the talk pages with little traffic outside the hardcore Very Active Editors — just for example — and being able to use the tool where appropriate and not use it where inappropriate (think: Pending Changes) seems critical. VE was not only a programming debacle but an enormous tactical error — they could have been tweaking and perfecting and smoothing the thing out for two years in some limited place on a Non-English, Non-German Wikipedia, building a real world case that it a product that works AND builds the editor ranks. Instead they went with the premature mass roll out in the harsh light of English-WP and mandatory default status for a very buggy beta product. The mind reels at who thought that was a good idea... Carrite (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Compare to enwiki tools and bots

We need to re-focus on creating our own tools for enwiki, and remember how much progress has already been made. Some of the most-important advancements were the direct transition to Lua script for the wp:CS1 cites (as tested by several cite experts) to edit-preview pages 2x-3x faster, and the Lua-based infoboxes which cut another 2 seconds off reformatting most articles. Plus, there are numerous graphic tools (see: wp:Graph and wp:Barchart) with Template:Brick_chart, and Template:Location_map for placing map-locator dots on images. I guess so much effort was spent trying to get the Foundation to delay VisualEditor until it "accepted [[xx]] as a wikilink" (still considered invalid) that too much attention was focused on hoping the WMF could fix problems, while almost totally ignoring all the powerful enwiki tools which are already in use, and could be enhanced with more features, as well as writing new tools. We already have some interesting options:

The BracketBot shows the power to perform syntax checks for mismatched parenthesis brackets, or curly braces "{{__}" which could save hours of proofreading in dozens of large pages, even though it does not think &#93 is "]".
wp:edit-conflicts can be reduced by putting HTML comments "" between adjacent lines in busy talk-pages or hot-topic articles.
Tests have shown the wp:CS1 Lua cites could be rewritten as 2x faster, or 300 cites per second, as how fast a Lua module could check for invalid parameters currently ignored in many infobox templates.
Beyond detecting invalid parameters, the Lua-based templates can be treated as tools which auto-correct thousands of minor typos in template parameters, such as now correcting plural "pages=9" to show singular "p. 9".
More users could be taught to use wp:AWB but fix even more wording in each article while editing.
People who want to combine wikitext editing with WYSIWYG could try side-by-side editing, as described in wp:Advanced article editing.

Each tool, or technique, helps with only a part of the problems, but working together, the benefits can be large. Overall, more users should be taught to use the tools, or enhance them, and we can get back to making major improvements which simplify the work for more editors, while rapidly fixing many overlooked typos or making difficult changes to pages with the help of semi-automated tools. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that reducing edit conflicts, especially for newbies, should be one of the highest development priorities for this site. Aside from the lost edits and volunteer time, this is very probably a major part of why people find the site to be bitey, and the only major part of that which would be easily fixed. As to your specific proposal, it would add further to the wall of gobbledegook facing anyone who clicks the edit button. Better in my view to accept the hash as a paragraph delimiter and treat categorisation as not conflicting with other edits and maybe do some of the other proposals stalled by bugzilla. One of the reasons why V/E should not have been deployed when it was was that it didn't support section editing (I gather some bugs have now been fixed, but I do check every month or two to see if they've fixed any of the major bugs/unfortunate design flaws from this Spring, and last I looked it didn't seem like they were making progress on the key problems that I knew of). It would be good if we could get some data to test the theory that edit conflicts drive newbies away, and put some numbers on the extent to which using a slower editor that edits whole articles increases the number of VE users who are on the losing side of edit conflicts.

Of course the other easy way to increase editor numbers would be to default new accounts to Monobook rather than Vector. When Vector was introduced the concern was more about readership than editorship, hence the default to a skin optimised more for readers than editors. Our problem in the Vector era is that a far lower proportion of new editors are sticking around and becoming core editors than in the Monobook era, some but not all of this is probably due to the change of default skin. This is a problem with a cheap solution. Ϣere SpielChequers 21:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Reasons why editors lose interest: One of the user surveys confirmed the problems in editor retention are mainly due to the common-sense reasons. So, answer the basic question: What factors would cause more people to drift away the fastest? Answers:

Not knowing where help would be most valuable, as no priorities given.
A feeling that contributions would be discarded, or not needed.
Disputes with people who quarrel over edits or details.
Not knowing the techniques to edit (lowest of reasons, as 9% of concerns).

Many people expected WP to be run as an organized system, which called for participation and directed efforts into specific areas, as might be common practice in a workplace. Because of the lack of positive reception to contributions, people obviously felt their work was dropped into a vacuum, or bottomless pit. That could be the result of posting to forums where many messages are rarely displayed, and without seeing a tangible response, people imagine the text goes into the "bit bucket". We often have people request the pageviews or search-counts of pages they write. Meanwhile, the level of hostility in disputes has been cited as a reason why many female editors leave soon, as they preferred to chat about several subjects rather than fight endlessly about one pointless issue. Imagine what many university-educated people think when they read the disputes. Considering all the big factors where people lose interest, no wonder the new users rarely consider the editor-tool technology much of a concern, especially since over 95% of text is easily edited in some form, or ask for help to update 99.9% of pages.
As for VE, I immediately confirmed, in several tests during late June 2013, how an edit-conflict was totally fatal in VE (for the slightest erstwhile one-word change), which caused VE to display an empty buffer to salvage from "the text" in the buffer. Just reading several user comments, months later, about VE failure to save a large edit session was reason enough to declare it a user-friendly disaster (the saying: "Fool me once, shame on you; Fool me twice..."). Of course numerous people would not keep using it, and new-edit stats dropped steadily from ~30% usage to 20% to 15%, and then opt-in at 0.003% as about 2-to-5 VE edits per thousand. For decades, people have quit computer work after a large edit was lost, or hard disk crashed, and users would scale back to smaller efforts; however, now we see the numerical impact as usage plummets from hundreds of VE edits, to 2-5 per thousand. The quitting factor is like 100-to-1 or such. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I have been hoping that the fall in V/E edits is due to people who try V/E finding that the classic editor is better and moving to it. Do you have any stats to indicate that they are leaving instead? That isn't me not believing you, but if you can get stats you are in a much stronger position to convince people that V/E is an even bigger problem than they might think.

The discarded edits issue is a problem and there are a lot of dejected former editors out there. But I'm fairly sure they are mostly people who added uncited info. Now I'm not a fan of the growing practice of simply reverting unsourced edits, but I do find that telling such editors that the solution is to cite their edits does defuse some anger. Especially if you point out that cited edits do usually stick. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

About wiki

Good discussion. To sum up my current view, I think it is important that we remove some of the usual heat from this topic and move away from the "prudes versus pornographers" lens, a lens which I do not think represents anyone's actual views fairly. Instead we should be thinking about editorial judgment (i.e. responsible and thoughtful treatment of sexual topics versus immature/shock value treatment) and the Principle of least astonishment (i.e. topics are treated in such a fashion that virtually all users are not astonished by it). I believe there is likely more common ground (especially in English Wikipedia, as contrasted with commons, where there is a deep-seated cultural problem) than most people realize.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Hi Jimbo, I am Benison. I've been here since 2005 and created an a/c on 2013 May. I saw many uncensored(nude) pics in wikipedia. Can you please do something about that bcoz it contributes to pornography. All ages are referring wikipedia. So my conscience(yours too) says that something must be done. Please look into the matter. Regards, Benison talk with me 11:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo has discussed several methods to limit viewing of various images, even outright deleting extra nude photos, but that caused some users to get angry, and it has been difficult to reach agreement on how to hide photos from sensitive users. There are policies which limit the uploading of too many nude photos. Another promising solution was to have a setting in Special:Preferences to specify a type of limited-view user group (such as to limit photos which appear in Shiite Muslim articles), and only then a page would be specially reformatted to omit (or replace) the troublesome photos or explicit-text templates which are tagged by various restricted-category names. It could be very fast because the current Lua-based templates allow most pages to be custom-reformatted within a few seconds, as is already done for custom image-size preferences (see: wp:Autosizing about image keyword "upright=1.20"). However, there were fears of mass censorship, and the debates have continued. Anyway, the Foundation has demonstrated how they could force even the VisualEditor into widespread use, so I think they could force people to allow tagging of photos, templates or entire explicit pages with the restricted-category links, and then various user accounts (young viewers) could be members of user-groups which viewed the custom-reformatted pages to omit explicit material. Doesn't that sound like a fairly workable solution? -Wikid77 (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, once you find a way round the difficulty that the vast majority of "young viewers" do not have user accounts. I imagine Benison is concerned about those young viewers too. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

That's easy, too. The tactic is to have Wikipedia default to some limited-view categories for the most-explicit images (not artistic nudes), plus have auto-login for parental-controls as set for each PC, where a username would have special user-control features under a 2nd password, so the parents or teachers could create the usernames and set the user-control passwords and then the auto-login account stays active, so a person might login to another username but upon logout, the prior auto-login username would return, with its own viewer limits. Then Shiite Muslim articles could have special sections of controversial material, as auto-hidden by user-group, such as the auto-login usernames. Likewise an article about painter Salvador Dali could have a limited-view section about his nude artwork which could be hidden as a template section omitted for auto-login usernames. To improve speed, there could be extra page-caching for the popular limited-view versions of pages, whereas today, only the plain form of pages is using page-cache copies, and any other features require every page viewed to be reformatted for that user. Also, WP could recommend browser-control software to limit access to the entire Internet in some cases, although explicit text might slip past. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I know exactly what Benison is talking about. I was over at the Commons the other day and made the mistake of looking at the recent uploads list...lots of guys uploading photos of their penises, from various angles, as if it were a science project. I then looked at one users' uploads and they were all selfies of his junk or of him having sex (many blurred, all of them of no public value). And this was just one ordinary day and I'm not a regular there...I'm sure this is a daily occurrence. I'm sure when the Commons was created, it wasn't intended to be a repository for amateur porn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Check Special:NewFiles on Commons again sometime, and those pictures would be unusual to find today. Instead, there are millions of other photos to attract the attention of young viewers. Of course, if parents allow unlimited access to the Internet, then young viewers are likely to find explicit material elsewhere also. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Good point. They're also going to find gossip, slander, and lies. Let's have those here too. Herostratus (talk) 07:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, so we need to limit views from young readers to wp:ANI or wp:RfA, or else post a tag-box warning: "The following discussion page contains so much distortion and false information that even most admins do not know what to believe". -Wikid77 12:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

An other great feature would be an option locker room v. cooperative edition that would give --for example-- a choice between "fuck off, moron; it was a genuine mistake" and "I am sorry for having asserted that Chagang Province was in South Korea" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chagang_Province&action=history). Pldx1 (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Another good point, so perhaps allow young readers to view only the ten talk-pages which do not contain vicious insults. The definition of "cyberbullying" should be: (1) Wikipedia, (2) insults posted to other websites which lack moderators in discussions. ;-) Wikid77 12:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there's been a lot of talk about image filters, but what we need are text filters. We need something like an (opt-out) Google Translator for Wikipedia English --> Normal English, so that when someone has typed (say) "What are you, a complete fucking idiot?" it appears to the reader as "While I respect your opinion, I cannot agree with it" and so on. Herostratus (talk) 13:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeh, I agree with Liz. Now antivirus softwares are coming with inbuilt parental settings to stop the e-pornography. It is effective to a good extent. They block websites by their content. But they are not much effective in Wikipedia bcoz Wikipedia is a library(YMMV,..encyclopedia) and those softwares can't block Wikis. Hence young readers are prone to watch explicit contents here. I don't agree with Herostratus because wikipedia is not a place to find gossip, slander, and lies. So I think we must stop pornography here also.Benison talk with me 11:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps those are reasons why Jimbo suggested to have limited-view categories here, but there has been much resistance to his guidance in prior years. -Wikid77 12:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I can understand your thoughts, as I too from Kerala. But please note that Pornography is not illegal in many places, including India. Amateur porn should be avoided; but unfortunately, some people use Commons:COM:NOTCENSORED to override it. J Kadavoor J e e 11:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see here. This is not beating a dead horse: it is more like beating a horse fossil. We are not censored and this is one of our founding principles. Explicit images are used in their appropriate context -that is, in sexuality articles and the like. Censorship geared towards silly cultural taboos is not going to happen. --cyclopia ^speak! 12:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to my home-built text filter, the above appeared to me as "You raise many cogent points, and thank you for contributing to the discussion. But as a practical matter, your arguments are unlikely to win through. The presence of editors such as myself constitute and demonstrate an insurmountable obstacle to your proposal, questions of merit aside." Herostratus (talk) 13:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the presence of editors unwilling to give in to those who seek to censor Wikimedia do present an insurmountable obstacle. Which is precisely as it should be and no amount of passive-aggressive whining will change that. Reso lute 17:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

In a recent DR, user Maurya1951 listed a number of files that a Commoner can ever proud of. :) J Kadavoor J e e 15:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

May be I am missing something, but this gives the impression that User:Jkadavoor criticizes the DELETION of quite all of the 26 penisses of commons:User:Maurya1951. Some of them are remaining nevertheless, so that User:Jkadavoor can still vote keep if he wants to. Pldx1 (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes; you are missing something. All other types of valuable images are available at many other places; but Commons is the only place where we can find these types of precious works. So deleting them will be a big loss to the human history. J Kadavoor J e e 07:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

complain

Dear supervisor my name is Somar and I want to complain about the Articles in Arabic and being different from what it is in all other languages and express opinions that is not required and are not considered neutral, where your site is considered a neutral reference and I consider this fraud, so please respond to me because I intend to raise a lawsuit on the site in the event of non-responding

this is my email : <redacted> please respond to my email

Kind regards Somar n — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.196.154.171 (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see our policy against legal threats. Also please understand that the wikipedia project for each language is separate, and has no control over articles in other languages. DES ^(talk) 16:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Please learn to address the central point rather than simply ignoring the crux of the argument—namely, that Wikipedia has committed blatant misrepresentation, fraud, even, through the systematic warping of history on smaller wikis. This blog post outlines the extent of the problems, and even though it is on Wikipediocracy (which is, unfairly, automatically considered to be a "bad site" among insiders here) it would be a good idea for you to go and read it. The lack of neutrality is so gaping that on the Arabic Wikipedia some users publicly sport userboxes showing their admiration for the brutal, barbarian murderer of millions, Adolf Hitler, including an individual who was very recently on the ~~gravy train~~ payroll of the Wikimedia Foundation. We should not encourage demagogues like this individual and make them Wikipedia insiders, nor should we allow the warped history taught in the Arab world to influence the minds of hundreds and compel them to wear the Hitler userbox on their userpages.

Somar, the insiders here have a strong policy against legal threats. Even if your statement was partially in jest, rather than a solid threat of any sort, they will ban you, because they look for form over substance, social connections rather than rational thinking. If I were in DES's position, I would have entertained your concerns and addressed them, rather than looking only at the legal threat and giving the dismissive "call my supervisor" treatment that you have received from DES. DES, you should be ashamed for biting a newcomer to the English Wikipedia.

I call upon Jimbo Wales to install open, constitutional authority upon all Wikipedias, rather than the opaque system of power networks and self-selecting leaders that we have right now. This is especially important in places of ethno-religious conflict, such as Indian-language Wikipedias (including the English Wikipedia, as English is an official and very commonly-spoken language there), Balkan-language ones, and the Arabic Wikipedia. We must not allow history to be written by those with political ends through its revision. Wer900 • talk 01:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I will only say that it isn't "insiders" that are concerned about legal threats. But just not understanding that is not going to keep you off the site. Please retract that threat in an unambiguous manner and you may well be unblocked. Wer900. you may well be a kind hearted person, but a threat is still a threat and many of us will ignore the subject when such threats are made. it is easy to simply pass over those that think that such threats will further their cause or make the situation better. Threats always make things worse.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Bright line rule

Please see Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Bright line rule for my discussion of a change I made at WP:NOT (it was reverted within a minute, so I'm not sure the change will still be there). Jimbo - if I have misstated the bright line rule, please let me know. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. It seems like an odd place for it - "What Wikipedia is not" I mean. But otherwise, I encourage vigorous discussion so that we can reach consensus. I also recommend that we ignore the paid advocates who turn up at every discussion of the matter to derail it with fallacious arguments.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, could you tell us which of the following users who left comments here and here are the paid advocates, and which of their arguments are fallacious? Or, were you just casting aspersions without any evidence to support? - 2001:558:1400:10:6CDA:AD4F:2207:8B09 (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good question. How do we know who to ignore them if they don't identify themselves? I only know of three paid editors, and none have gotten involved. Coretheapple (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The way I figure it is that, as a whole, the presence of multiple fallacious arguments in an RfC is pretty obvious. If it turns out to be the case that this tactic is used, I'll suggest that we request the WMF to conduct a vote such as is used for electing arbs and board members. I doubt that paid advocates are more than 10% of our editors, but they can grandstand in an RfC and try to derail matters enough to appear to be 50% of editors. I suspect that if the question of allowing paid advocacy is put to a vote of editors, at most 20% would vote to allow it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Checking the contributions of some of the "opposes," I'm seeing evidence of advocacy suggestive of paid editing. But that's by no means clear. I'd still appreciate some follow-up by Jimbo Wales on his remark. I notice that, busy man that he is, he has a tendency to drop in on a subject and then withdraw, not responding to follow up queries. Coretheapple (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the request that I name specific users - I see no benefit to come from it. It is general advice that we should all take into account. I have always said that we should not consider the community to be "anyone who happens to show up" but rather those who share our values. Examples of blatantly fallacious arguments include (1) equating all paid editing of any kind (a professor whose university supports that faculty should contribute to Wikipedia in their subject areas is not at all the same thing as a representative of a PR firm engaging in chicanery) and (2) a view that paid advocacy is no different from any other kind of advocacy so that no special rules are possible or desirable. If rumors and recent press reports are true there is at least one sleazy firm with 20 or more employees working full-time to subvert our processes with sockpuppets, spoofed/distributed ip addresses, dishonest self-descriptions, 100% lack of transparency, etc. It would be ludicrous to think that such characters, working with that level of dishonesty, are not attempting to derail our defenses against their spam operations. Keep an eye out for it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You suggested "we ignore the paid advocates who turn up at every discussion of the matter to derail it with fallacious arguments," and I was trying to figure out who those paid advocates were. Re the fallacious arguments, I certainly agree with you on that. What we're seeing, however, are fallacious arguments being advanced very vigorously by long-established Wikipedia editors, including at least one who I believe is on the arbitration committee. It's not just fly-by-night accounts. There is very strong opposition to doing a thing to curb paid editing, even imposing a simple "bright line rule." As you can see from the discussion on that page, there is at present no consensus for imposing such a rule as policy, and it stands a good chance of going down to defeat. If that happens, would you or the Foundation be able to do something yourselves? Or does that end the matter? I'm not talking about sockpuppeting, as that is already prohibited, but a rule against paid editing beyond what is already there now. Perhaps the Foundation establishing a conflict of interest policy? Coretheapple (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I'm referring specifically to the RfC here. Note that long-term editors are vehemently opposing this idea, using the kind of arguments that I think we both agree are fallacious. Coretheapple (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Several people thought WP:NOT was "an odd place for it." The proposal at WP:NOT is now closed and a very similar proposed policy is at Wikipedia:No paid advocacy standing all by itself, not attached to anything. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, geez. There are two arbitrators who have opposed this proposal, so I am not sure which one of us is supposed to be posting the "fallacious argument". I will note, however, that arbitrators generally speaking are probably far more aware of the actual types of disputes that occur on Wikipedia than the average editor; we get the ones that the community has washed its hands of because there aren't easy answers. My arguments aren't fallacious: they're based entirely on events that have already occurred on this project, and most of them have included allegations that *someone* was a paid editor, used as a trump card to try to eliminate an opposing point of view. Wikipedia is about the content, not the contributors. It doesn't matter if someone gains a benefit from writing articles; in fact, there would hardly be a point if our editors gained no benefit at all. But there is absolutely no difference between advocacy because one's a true believer and advocacy because one is getting a few bucks. The problem is advocacy, and it always has been. POV-pushing is just as virulent whether it's argumentative or civil, whether it's from new editors or old hands, whether it is motivated by altruism or remuneration. That money is more evil than other means of advocacy is the fallacious argument here. Risker (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm a long time editor who couldn't agree more with this 'fallacious' argument. That PR firm was guilty of POV-pushing and sock-puppeting, guided by their extreme conflict of interest. We have policies in place to stop that sort of thing. Paid POV-pushing and sock-puppeting is only the very, very tip of the iceberg when it comes to Wikipedia's problems. Just look at this talk page and you see what we're talking about: POV pushing by Hindu nationalists, POV-pushing on both sides of Monsanto, POV-pushing on both sides of big Pharma, and transgender issues (I'm not taking sides with any of these, fyi). By far the worst advocacy I've seen on Wikipedia is based purely on personal beliefs, political agendas, grudges, religion, or just plain spite. Better to focus on using the tools we already have to make sure articles are neutral and non-promotional. We don't need witch-hunts started by every accusation of someone being a corporate 'shill'. It couldn't be more obvious that money is not the renumeration that is responsible for most POV and advocacy issues. First Light (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

There are problems with conflating editing on the basis of personal convictions with editing for monetary gain. The owner of WikiExperts states that millions of dollars are at stake for his clients vis-a-vis their articles on Wikipedia.

There is a concept in intellectual property law that generally occurs with respect to trademark violations that is referred to as "free-riding"[7] (been a while since I've thought about this). That concept is based on the notion of obtaining an unfair advantage by using a mark that evokes an association with a famous brand, causing confusion in the mind of the consumer whereby the associate the free-riding product with the famous brand product and buy the free-riding product.

Though not a direct correlation, what the companies this "WikiExpert" is marketing is basically a service of enabling them to free-ride on the good reputation of Wikipedia to present their marketing hype as a reliable source of information on the company and its products and services. It is a blatant attempt to circumvent the non-commercial character of Wikipedia and appropriate it for commercial ends that are counter to the Wikipedia ethos and values. The result, of course, is that it subverts Wikipedias ethos and values. --Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 18:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that you may be right about the "free riding" — that would apply only to them using "Wiki" in their name to tie them to Wikipedia in people's minds. But I'm not a lawyer. I'm still not convinced that there is a significant quantitative difference in conflicts of interest caused by financial gain, emotional gain, religious or national boosterism, politics, personal vendettas, etc. The difference is only qualitative, in terms of what people value the most and how they use it to color their POV-editing. My own POV may be showing through here, because money is quite far down the list of things I value the most (not because I have it in abundance, far from it, but because I've had enough life experience to know better). First Light (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but recall that they leave no trace of their involvement except in the editing history. That is to say, the reading public wouldn't know that the promotionally slanted article they are reading has been crafted by a PR profession in the employ of the company that is the subject of the article. WikiExperts are thereby effectively hijacking Wikipedia as a medium for their PR venture, adding a different dimension to the IP concept of free-riding.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 06:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Risker, I think that what's reflected in your comments on the subject is an overly rigid interpretation of the "comment on content, not contributor" principle, in such a way that Wikipedia will forever be stuck in the Stone Age when it comes to policing conflicts of interest. Since your viewpoint is widespread, and is adopted by longtime editors who have been drinking the Wikipedia kool-aid for years, my feeling is that this is a hopeless subject to pursue in "community" discussions, and that a meaningful COI rule will only be adopted if imposed from above. Wikipedia volunteers are clearly too utterly clueless on this subject, too ignorant of best practices, to deal with corporate people planting and controlling articles about themselves and their clients. Coretheapple (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Coretheapple, the long-standing and almost universally upheld "comment on content, not the contributor" extends to policy discussions with Wikipedia editors, except it's called No Personal Attacks. So far on this page you've accused some of us as being "utterly clueless", "too ignorant", and "drinking the Wikipedia kool-aid". None of those comments have helped this discussion proceed, and are only derailing it, in my opinion. First Light (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, but I'm interested in the opinion of Jimbo Wales. The "Brightline" proposed policy is clearly not going to be adopted. So my question to him is this: Is the next step in the hands of the "community" - in other words, nothing is going to happen - or are he or the Foundation going to do anything about imposing a COI policy? Coretheapple (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC){od}

Are we really concerned about content or editors? I'd almost postulate that if editors are being paid to create articles then just make the "Keep" criteria based on a minimum number of commenting editors. Sockpuppets can make contributions difficult but in rarely read and unread articles, who cares? Make the AfD a brightline participation goal: "If less than 20 editors comment on an AfD article, it's an automatic delete on notability". Then auto SPI all contributors for IP and tag it in the header. "15 of the 20 editors used the same or similar IP in this discussion." If the article is worthwhile, it shouldn't be hard to generate enough independent editors to comment. Virtually all of our content is sourced to paid contributors anyway whether it's a primary source or a secondary source. None of their COI is disclosed to us though even when we determine it to be "reliable." . --DHeyward (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor newsletter on 16 October 2013

Did you know?

You can create and edit multi-level lists in VisualEditor. The first two icons let you set or remove list formatting.

The last two are used to increase or decrease the indentation level. This can also be done from the keyboard, by using Tab ↹ to indent the list and ⇧ Shift+Tab ↹ to outdent it.

For more information, read Wikipedia:VisualEditor/User guide.

VisualEditor is still being updated every Thursday. As usual, what is now running on the English Wikipedia had a test run at Mediawiki during the previous week. If you haven't done so already, you can turn on VisualEditor by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable".

The reference dialog for all Wikipedias, especially the way it handles citation templates, is being redesigned. Please offer suggestions and opinions at mw:VisualEditor/Design/Reference Dialog. (Use your Wikipedia username/password to login there.) You can also drag and drop references (select the reference, then hover over the selected item until your cursor turns into the drag-and-drop tool). This also works for some templates, images, and other page elements (but not yet for text or floated items). References are now editable when they appear inside a media item's caption (bug 50459).

There were a number of miscellaneous fixes made: Firstly, there was a bug that meant that it was impossible to move the cursor using the keyboard away from a selected node (like a reference or template) once it had been selected (bug 54443). Several improvements have been made to scrollable windows, panels, and menus when they don't fit on the screen or when the selected item moves off-screen. Editing in the "slug" at the start of a page no longer shows up a chess pawn character ("♙") in some circumstances (bug 54791). Another bug meant that links with a final punctuation character in them broke extending them in some circumstances (bug 54332). The "page settings" dialog once again allows you to remove categories (bug 54727). There have been some problems with deployment scripts, including one that resulted in VisualEditor being broken for an hour or two at all Wikipedias (bug 54935). Finally, snowmen characters ("☃") no longer appear near newly added references, templates and other nodes (bug 54712).

Looking ahead: Development work right now is on rich copy-and-paste abilities, quicker addition of citation templates in references, setting media items' options (such as being able to put images on the left), switching into wikitext mode, and simplifying the toolbar. A significant amount of work is being done on other languages during this month. If you speak a language other than English, you can help with translating the documentation.

For other questions or suggestions, or if you encounter problems, please let everyone know by posting problem reports at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback and other ideas at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Paid editing blowup

Largest sockpuppet bust in Wikipedia history traces back to paid editing for hire firm 'Wiki-PR': http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest-network-history-wiki-pr/ Ocaasi^{t | c} 15:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Incredible. I've been hearing rumblings about this for a few days, and I'm very eager that we pursue this with maximum effect.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting read. I'm sorry to note that I helped morning 277 with some OTRS issues. I think they were legitimate, but this puts a different spin on some of the requests. However, I must comment of how well-done the article is. My experience is generally that if I read something in a newspaper or magazine, and I have more than average knowledge of the subject matter, I can usually poke a few holes in the article. This reporter, Simon Owens, seems to have done some homework. Of course there are nits, admins can do blocks not bans, and I suspect some of our non admin editors will question the gaudy portrayal of admins (for that matter I think it was a bit over the top), but many things seems to have been done right. Acceptable discussion of inside baseball terms, and a decent handle on the processes. I'm not active in SPI, and maybe those active will find some fault, but on balance, it seemed well-done.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 23:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

For everyone's information, WMF's Legal and Community Advocacy teams have been looking at this issue for a few weeks, and we are continuing to do so. As part of that investigation, we're continually following the analysis being done by the community in the SPI page. Unfortunately, while we are evaluating taking legal action we can't discuss the issue as openly as we would normally do. In the meantime, we deeply appreciate the years of work done by the various volunteers involved in this case, and are looking at every option we have to support you. -LVilla (WMF) (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd encourage everybody involved to take very serious steps on this. There are too many times (e.g. in the last few days) that I've heard something like "Well, you can't do anything about paid editing, so you're just going to have to accept it." I don't think we have to accept this. Some things the WMF can do.

Report the case to the FTC - undisclosed advertising is illegal - and there is almost certainly advertising in here. It would make a point.
We could also send them notice that all their owners, employees, and contractors are banned for violating the terms of use, that is:Misusing Our Services for Other Illegal Purposes ....
- Using the services in a manner that is inconsistent with applicable law.

The WMF certainly has the right to do this - (further on in the terms of use) "We reserve the right to suspend or end the services at any time, with or without cause, and with or without notice."

You might wonder what is the point of banning possibly unknown employees if the WMF doesn't have the technical means to do anything about it. Well, the WMF likely has the legal and/or PR means to do something about it. Possibly a cease and desist order could be filed to prevent them from advertising (after all - they won't have any employees who can edit here - so they would be doing false advertising as well as defaming Wikipedia by claiming our admins work for them) and in any case their business reputation would be in tatters.

Of course, the WMF should talk with them before threatening to go to court. Ask for their employee and client lists so we can repair the damage they caused.

Finally, I think this should be reviewed at the board level - are we ever going to have a policy that can clearly discourage paid editing in an effective way? Another thing I heard in just the last few day goes something like this "There are too many editors with an interest in keeping paid editing, and with the consensus system and RfCs, they can always prevent anything from being changed." Sounds like a challenge to me. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Smallbones above. The most disturbing aspect of this article is that it says that administrators are claimed to be paid editors. Coretheapple (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with Smallbones. What's most disturbing to me is that once again there is no "blow-up" over this here, on-wiki, where it matters. petrarchan47 t c 18:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Also agreed. I was hoping this would be something the board could take action on, legal or otherwise. I think it is dangerous for the community to just accept or let slide an institution that disrupts Wikipedia in this systematic manner. Sure, they may be bluffing about having admins, but maybe they are not. I am surprised their business model has not failed given this kind of press, of which I hope it so deservedly gets more. But this is not the kind of matter to wait out. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

When the word spread that BP had an employee, the head of their PR department, working on Wikipedia, drafting text which was then entered by (what we must assume to be) independent editors, the Wikipedia community supported it. Sure, there were a few outliers who complained, but we were drowned out by the overwhelming defense of the activity because it is wiki-legal and because the PR rep is a perfectly nice guy. However, the off-wiki chatter was filled with outrage and most importantly for Wikipedia, filled with a common sentiment: "Well, I'll never donate to Wikipedia again!". We can continue to look the other way but our readers do not and will not. petrarchan47 t c 18:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That was because he "follows the rules." See my comment below. The rejoinder to that is "what rules?" Chevron's p.r. person is at least as aggressive. Coretheapple (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

"The rules" are the issue here. They support paid editing and in turn unfortunately contribute to the mass exodus of independent editors, who can feel and witness that the cards are stacked against them. petrarchan47 t c 19:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any data about this "mass exodus of independent editors"? I'm not even sure what distinguishes an independent editor from a non-independent one. And as for "the cards are stacked against them"...I'm not sure what this refers to. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Data: * * * *. My experiences working on articles where BP and Monsanto have an interest showed me how to easily distinguish between an indie and someone playing the role, but bending or ignoring wiki guidelines in a way that slants all of their edits, and indeed entire groups of articles, in favor of these companies. The cards are stacked against anyone wanting to add information, however well-sourced, that may not improve the image of these two companies on Wikipedia. Did you know about the Facebook group called CREWE? It that is made up of PR reps and Wikipedia editors willing to help them. On the other hand, what I refer to as 'independent' editors do not declare any such POV, and unfortunately have no such support system.

FWIW, Jimmy Wales: "I think we need to be very clear in a lot of different places that PR firms editing Wikipedia is something that we frown upon very very strongly. The appearance of impropriety is so great that we should make it very very strongly clear to these firms that we do not approve of what they would like to do." petrarchan47 t c 21:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

He said that in 2006. It would be nice if Mr. Wales could either reaffirm what he said then or repudiate it. Clearly the practice at Wikipedia is to discourage (but not prohibit) p.r. people from editing, and to allow them to create articles via the Articles for Creation process. People apparently make their living doing so, and it's apparent that the amount of p.r. participation in Wikipedia has increased simultaneously with the decrease in the overall number of people editing Wikipedia. Coretheapple (talk) 23:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

From 2013, regarding BP PR 'ghostwriting', Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has also weighed in, writing in a discussion forum on the site that Wikipedia would analyze [BP]'s work to see if it qualified as biased and would also examine whether the Wikipedia editors' copying and pasting of [BP]'s content was "inappropriate."Still, Wales said that it's possible no whitewashing took place on BP's part because there is evidence that the article covers the Deepwater oil spill in a "quite direct and clear way." But, Wales said, that issue needs to be discussed further. Yes. Yes, it does. petrarchan47 t c 23:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

What this article omitted was that there is an enormous safe harbor permitted for paid editing. As long as the conflict of interest is disclosed, paid editors are not only accepted into the bosom of the community but are dealt with warmly, even protectively. The mistake made by the editors described in this article is that they broke the rules. They did not have to, because there really are no rules, only guidelines that are weak. Paid editors even create articles through the AfC process. I see nothing happening about this disgraceful situation until the flow of money to Wikipedia from donors is affected. Coretheapple (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

No. A paid editor who puts an article through AFC will (or should) have it declined if it fails WP:GNG or WP:NPOV. An open paid editor who takes all available opportunities for review and only promises clients a neutral article is an asset to the client and the project. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

No? You mean "yes." Paid editors create articles, resulting in content that would not be there if it wasn't for the subjects paying for it. The more this happens, the more it tilts the content of the encyclopedia into becoming a tool of the p.r. industry. Defending that is like defending a newspaper that opens up its pages to paid contributions without disclosure to the reader, with the "advertorials" mingling with legitimate news copy as long as it reads "neutral." Coretheapple (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This is interesting because I just stumbled on to Wikipedia:Bounty board this morning. Granted, the money paid by others went to WMF and not the individual Editor but it demonstrates that "paid editing" is not something brand new. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather figure out ways of curbing paid editing rather than excusing it or finding precedents for it. Coretheapple (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the above is something familiar to anyone who has studied alcohol prohibition in the 1920s or today's "war on drugs"; attempts to "curb" something often lead to there being more of it. If we discourage the ethical COI editors who self-disclose and who let independent editors evaluate their suggested changes, we will get more undisclosed COI editing. The demand will not go away just because we try to "curb" it, and where there is money to be made, someone will step in to meet that demand. Allowing ethical COI editors to meet that need hurts the undisclosed COI editors and thus benefits us two ways; first, it reduces their customer base as corporations discover that we revert the blatant PR when we find it. second, the ethical COI editors are in a unique position to find and report the undisclosed COI editors; often the same customer talks to both while shopping for the service. Also, the ethical COI editors have a financial interest in finding and reporting the undisclosed COI editors, and in spreading the word about Wikipedia COI policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

One problem is the assumption that we can "let independent editors evaluate the content", and be assured a neutral result. It is an uneven playing field, where one is being paid and may have a PR team behind them, as in the case at BP, to dig up exactly the right sources, and craft the perfect wording. At BP talk, this grew exhausting for independent editors to have to check each and every reference, for every proposed change (which come at a dizzying rate sometimes), and research the issue to see whether the whole story was being told. And in the case of BP, it was rarely a straightforward process. It is less time consuming to start from scratch adding content by neutral editors. That is a longer story, but a point User:SlimVirgin made well. A perhaps larger issue is that we are not indicating to our readers when content emanates from a COI source. I'm not sure that is legal. petrarchan47 t c 18:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Please keep Catalan Wikipedia discussion separate from local en.wikipedia issues.

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

Paid editing is wrong, especially when a local governor does it with tax money (source), much needed in Spain, due to a severe recession, to try to change FACTS of history and nowadays, making a brutal MASSIVE BIAS in ca.wiki so... should wikimedia partner associations admit ALL money for Wikipedia, GLAM projects, Public libraries and conference rooms, from local secessionist governors of hate and confrontation, if the suposed "job" is to indoctrinate population and children to hate and secessionism? When you see this video of children saying that "Spanish people steal our money, they are bad - we are better than they..." etc... What do you think?
Paid editing is not the only indoctrination system here. In Catalonia schools since kindergarten, children are subjected by nationalist Catalan teachers to psychological manipulation of their minds to induce in them a independentist sense against the rest of Spain. They do not let them grow and learn to have their own judgment about the world around them, They are directly manipulated and indoctrinated with anti-Spaniards symbols and messages against the rest of Spain. ca.wikipedia.org must not be part of this indoctrination. Please, say NO to ALL Paid editing which then ask "favors" later. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.9.217.223 (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow, just wow. Paid editing by admins. I have been saying for years paid editing was a slippery slope that should be fought against with every resource available. Now this. Jimmy, after reading this article I call on you and the WMF to take prompt and very firm action against paid editing. As for admins, it is such an obvious COI that words fail me, except to say that admins caught as paid agents should be perma-banned. Period. Jusdafax 00:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Admins have been caught editing for money before; it's not unprecedented. Graham87 07:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  - Nor is the talk of PR firms' activity here. Time to put an end to it. petrarchan47 t c 22:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Jimmy, as someone who did 300 of the last blocks, then abandoned the case, trust me that this isn't going to get pursued to the maximum effect. If you want to know more, you can email me, this whole affair has pretty much chased me away from Wikipedia, and I don't see a benefit of harping here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, I find it extremely disturbing that Dennis, who has done more than anyone to tackle this, says here that he knows "this isn't going to get pursued to the maximum effect", and has said before that he has been warned off pursuing it: "Arb has privately made it very clear they don't want Morning277 sockpuppets blocked".

Dennis has been reluctant to give further details publicly of what he has been told. Please take up his offer and email him, and then let those of us on the front line know what is going on. Absent any explicit order, I have been continuing to block obvious socks and to refuse under WP:CSD#G5 to restore their deleted articles, but it is alarming for those manning the battlements to hear hints that the high command do not want the barbarians kept out.

Dennis says that this has "pretty much chased me away from Wikipedia". If there is a policy of appeasement which loses us one of our most energetic and level-headed admins that will be serious additional damage.

I agree. I've emailed Dennis. I need allies on this one. It's time to put our foot down.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I think myself that the only way this will be stopped is if socks are blocked, articles deleted, G5 applied ruthlessly to prevent re-creation, and titles salted, in the hope that the word gets round that being a Wiki-PR client not only doesn't get you an article but effectively gets you blacklisted. JohnCD (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, subject to some caveats. (I.E. I think that's a good broad thrust of what a policy should say, but a longer version would be more detailed and cover exceptions and way for victims of such PR scammers a way out of purgatory.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course, we also must think about that any editor around here could be paid editors...some more openly admit it and same goes for socking....we have had several previous admins that were sockmasters or sockpuppets of banned users. The thing is that Wikipedia is so anonymous. Very few editors identify their real-life name, city, age, etc. If we thought further, a 4 year old could be behind an admin account, or a 90 year old, you never know. What WP needs is a system, as SPI is a mess ATM. WorldTraveller101 (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

If it is indeed the case that "Arb has privately made it very clear they don't want Morning277 sockpuppets blocked" (and knowing Dennis I believe this absolutely) then we need to know which Arbs, when, and how, and this information needs to be made public. Because if any Arbs have done this, they need to be removed ASAP. Dennis? Black Kite (talk) 00:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Black Kite ~~when are the ArbCom elections? Because if so, then we do remove them and don't re-elect them.~~ I do wonder how it leaks that a user is a paid editor. Hm.... WorldTraveller101 (talk) 01:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that elections are even the issue. If it is the case (and I of course, like anyone else, would need to see proof of this), then any Arb doing this type of thing needs to not be an Arb now, regardless of when their term expires. Black Kite (talk) 01:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Just saw how it goes...deeply concerning that such an event would occur. Let Dennis figure it out and we'll go from here. WorldTraveller101 (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that those "in the know" generally cannot disclose the specifics of what they know, because it came from confidential lists. --Rs chen 7754 07:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

But that leaves us in the intolerable situation where an industrial-scale spamming operation has been exposed which is still continuing, Wikipedia is filling up with paid-for articles effectively written by companies' PR departments, but the relevant SPI has been effectively closed down and the admin dealing with the case has been "pretty much chased away". "We can't tell you what's going on because it's confidential" is not good enough. Are we allowing Wiki-PR to carry on unopposed, or are we trying to stop them? If we are not trying to stop them, I certainly want to know why, and why I should continue to spend time deleting other spam and blocking spammers. JohnCD (talk) 09:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The odds of us "allowing Wiki-PR to carry on unopposed" are about the same as the odds of Jimbo becoming the next pope. (if he does become the new pope, I get dibs on being the new Advocatus Diaboli...) I think that you and I are going to have to accept that if they tell us everything they are also telling Wiki-PR everything and that we will get all the details as soon as possible without hindering the efforts to fight the sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't really understand why you repeatedly assert no one is doing anything when statements about intent have been issued already by Jimbo and Luis (not to mention that WMF has already been looking into this for several weeks). What are you expecting them to tell you? They're certainly not going to divulge their legal strategy or their internal analysis because obviously that could be used to circumvent or weaken any future legal action. We've expressed our outrage at the situation, and the WMF is clearly making an effort to respond, which is likely going to take some preparation. This seems like a satisfactory enough response to me for the time being. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

What I was expecting them to tell me was whether pursuit of Morning277 socks was or was not officially discouraged. There seems to be an answer at WT:Arbitration Committee#So what's the deal here? JohnCD (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

WMF involvement?

Hey guys, PR guy and COI contributor here. I noticed that Smallbones and Jusdafax are soliciting for legal action by the WMF on this matter and when I attended a discussion with a few Wikipedia editors a day or two ago, a couple expressed a similar viewpoint, that it was something that could not be handled by the community alone.

Wiki-PR is still soliciting for business - I talked to a marketing guy just yesterday that was in talks with them. And despite destroying hundreds of accounts, they can just as easily create more. This paints a rather hopeless picture for volunteers and there are a breath of options for legal action that would create (I think) a more sustainable resolution.

Naturally, WMF is in that weird position the community puts them in where one minute everyone is telling them BACK OFF! and the next we're saying "why aren't you doing anything?" However, one thing that has been brought up that I think is worth further discussion is if consensus should be built that the community does want them involved in this case and if there was a clear consensus if WMF would be able to do so (or if a chapter organization could do it).

I think I easily speak for the entire PR community when I say that we also don't endorse this kind of activity. CorporateM (Talk) 13:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

CorporateM, unless I'm mistaken you're creating articles for clients via AfCs, which is one of the practices that needs to be stopped. If you want to be part of the solution to this issue, you should stop doing that. As I see it, the problem is, principally, not the PR people who are creating sockpuppets and breaking the rules, but the ones who are exploiting the existing very weak COI guidelines to create and edit articles on behalf of their clients, and to advocate for them on talk pages of articles. It's not their behavior but the weakness of the guidelines and the permissive attitude toward such practices that is the problem. Coretheapple (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the practices that CorporateM is exploiting need to be addressed and are wrong, but I think the problem is principally with PR people who are engaging in clearly unethical behavior (sock puppeting and the like). I also agree that permissiveness is a big part of the problem, and I think there are two reasons for it. First, many people working in their own little areas don't realize the magnitude of the threat. Second, every discussion that arises brings in paid advocates making lots of noise and engaging in bad argumentation to cloud the issue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Glad to hear you say that and I hope that a strong effort is made both to clean up the PR socks and make Wikipedia PR-unfriendly. No disrespect to PR professionals, but the "advertorial" analogy that I made above is I believe directly applicable to Wikipedia. We can't have advertorials, articles initiated by PR professionals and guided by them. My other concern is that talk page use by PR professionals need to be far more limited than currently. I think that PR editors game the system not because they're bad people but because it is their job, which is to serve their clients. Wikipedia rules focus on the content rather than on the identity of editors, which I agree is the best approach, but then you have editors declaring their conflicts, working within the rules, and generating and shaping articles for their clients. Editors tolerate this and see nothing wrong with it. Coretheapple (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I have worked on several occasions with declared PR people who edited existing articles via the {{editrequest}} mechanism. I didn't find this a problem, and while I ahd to insist on good sourcing, i found my input was requested and in teh end articles were improved. I wouldn't have a problem with similarly declared editors using AfC, and as an occasional AfC reviewer I would approve such if sourcing and notability (and other requirements) were clearly in place. I think we can gain more than we lose thorh this kind of thing provided it is well monitored by experienced independent editors. DES ^(talk) 23:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, the reader loses. People coming to an article in Wikipedia have a right to expect that the articles were not planted by corporate/organizational PR people, but are there because an independent editor found them interesting enough to write about. PR-planted articles do not disclose their inherent POV and conflict of interest to readers (unlike newspaper advertorials). Indeed, that is why businesses and people hire editors to plant articles about them, because the companies or organizations were not significant enough to be written about (even though yes, they meet the notability criteria; heaven forbid that the rules are not followed!). Neither are such articles fair for the companies and organizations that are more ethical, and are willing to wait until somebody unconnected with their organizations write about them. If I can find an article in Wikipedia about Acme Widgets, but not its competitor Beta Widgets, or if the Acme article is long (even a Good Article) while the Beta article is a stub, the implication is that Acme Widgets is a more interesting, more noteworthy, better company. In fact, it just has a lower standard of ethics and has no qualms about buying its way into Wikipedia and paying somebody to add to its length. Coretheapple (talk) 23:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy, allow me to say again that this matter is a deal-breaker for those of us with years of good-faith editing experience. The corrupting influence of money, especially big money, is going to force the paid editors into increasingly clever ways to avoid detection to get what they want. This needs to be countered aggressively and with harsh sanctions which will put a severe crimp in paid editing abuses. It's my strongly-held belief that the line that needs to be drawn by you is that paid editing is inherently POV editing, and invites abuse. Please take the stand, and advance it to the WMF, that paid editing can no longer be tolerated in any form as a threat to core Wikipedia values. If paid editing is allowed to continue in the current direction, it will discourage and drive away the purists among us that truly believe that this is an encyclopedia for humanity that cannot be bought. Jus da fax 23:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

While I don't agree specifically with the paid-editing = POV editing assertion above, I think it is not unreasonable for us to perhaps assert that paid editing in any form is inherently problematic and invites abuse. Now, I can and do see, in some cases, that it might not be unreasonable to allow individuals on their own or their firm's articles or PR flacks to use article talk pages to propose edits, and at the discretion of the admin or other reviewing the request to perhaps, at their discretion, remove the section from the page, if the proposed changes are particularly over-the-top praise or something like that. I have no idea how one might be able to enforce such, but that is a separate matter entirely. John Carter (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It goes a lot beyond talk page participation, which itself is problematic for reasons that have been discussed at length in the past. How about a situation in which a PR person comes to the Conflict of Interest noticeboard. He says, "I've helped Brand x put together some content for consideration by Wikipedia's editors at" a certain location. "The proposed article would change an 8-cite, 3 paragraph stub into a 40+ cite article that may be getting close to a GA, including expanding and adding several controversies and criticisms. I appreciate your time in advance in considering our content. Cheers." He's being perfectly OK, the flag is not touching the ground. People jump over each other to help this person build up the article in question. He helpfully steps in and edits the article, adding content like a good Wikipedia trooper. The article is currently under consideration for GA status. This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. It is really up to Jimmy Wales to determine if what I've described is acceptable or not. If it's acceptable then there is really no point in further discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

That is a great example, and thank you for it. Certainly, providing a wealth of material in what is (hopefully) a basically neutral manner about a marginally notable group or one with a bad article at the time would be very useful. Unfortunately, it might also be very POV. Ideally, maybe, this might be the kind of situation which WP:OTRS might be really good at dealing with, in terms of getting the editors there, or other trusted editors, to use material supplied by someone related to the subject of an article to use in the development of an article, and if there are enough editors who could be involved in that way to really help in this sort of matter, that might resolve it. Maybe, I dunno. John Carter (talk) 00:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Could we just put a standard notice on the top of the article. It would attract editors specializing in enforcing neutrality as well as give some warning to the readers. In most cases expanding a stub into a normal article is of benefits to the readers Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Let me have an analogy here. For many years Wikipedia has been fighting SEO people who inserts thousand of spam links per day. I think a reasonably large amount of money is involed but I think we are winning the battle. We are winning not by trying to identify SEO-paid people among our editors are by enforcing our policy on external links, etc. Obviously, if we could prove somebody is paid by SEO firms we would block them, but it is their the major success is. Now we have somehow larger opponents - PR people. We could (and should) block people who are paid to violate our policies but the main effort should be directed to upholding the policies that PR people violate: WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:PEACOCK, WP:C. I think it has more chances to success.

Besides, we do not have a Zero-sum game here. PR people wants to put information regarding their subjects on wiki (often we have none). We also want this information (if it is notable, reliable, unbiased). So having good articles on their subjects would be in the interests of both parties. As an example we are interested in having articles on notable Gibraltar attractions and the government of Gibraltar is interested in it. If we knew that the article editors were paid we would probably still want those articles but we would want better scrutiny on them and their references from the main page. Could we achieve some compromise with the paid editors? E.g. they identify the COI themselves (opening their edits to additional scrutiny) and they do not edit war (so NPOVing the articles is not a pain for our volunteers). In exchange we do not block them if the COI is found. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

That's probably a significantly better phrased and more carefully reasoned out variation on my proposal for OTRS above, and I think I could agree to it. It might help if perhaps we were able to get some sort of central discussion page/noticeboard for such input from PR people and article subjects as well. I know I've seen at least a few such discussions on noticeboards already, and rather welcomed them. John Carter (talk) 01:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Alex, you say PR people wants to put information regarding their subjects on wiki (often we have none). We also want this information (if it is notable, reliable, unbiased). So having good articles on their subjects would be in the interests of both parties. OK, but what if a PR person becomes the dominant voice on an article's talk page, and, by virtue of that (notwithstanding that his edits are executed by others), the dominant editor of an article? That's what's happening. Again, the ball is in Jimmy Wales's court. I don't want to just flap my gums here. Either he does something about these kinds of situations or arguing about it here is just venting and hence a ridiculous waste of time. Coretheapple (talk) 13:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

True. There's a risk to the quality of the encyclopedia, whether a PR person is dominating the actual editing of a page directly, or indirectly through the talk page. But we already have no shortage of single-issue fanatics dominating (or trying to dominate) certain pages - I'm sure everyone is aware of examples, whatever the field of articles they specialise in editing - and sometimes with quite adverse results. I can't see that PR people are worse than these editors for the quality of the encyclopedia merely because they're paid. I don't know what the solution is, but I'm fairly sure it doesn't lie in spending a lot of effort on policies and processes specifically aimed at keeping out paid PR editors. Barnabypage (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys, just to clarify - I thought AfC was the appropriate channel for someone with a COI to propose a new article. If there is a more appropriate path, can someone please let me know? CorporateM (Talk) 14:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I am pretty sure it still is. The problem (for you) is that some people want to outlaw what you are doing altogether as opposed to regulating it. I think they have a point. While COI editing in general is, and should be, regulated rather than outlawed, I doubt that the establishment of a commercial infrastructure around editing Wikipedia is in Wikipedia's interest. In the short term this may have benefits for everyone involved, if done ethically, but in the long term I am afraid the possible effects on the community may not be worth it. Hans Adler 15:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll take a hint from Jimbo RE paid editors injecting themselves into the conversation and take a step back. CorporateM (Talk) 16:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Well... one more thing. I was talking to someone with expertise in this topic from a legal perspective last night - they said the Federal Trade Commission was very weak about enforcement of astroturfing regulations, but Attorney Generals are more likely to pursue enforcement; he said the way to get their attention would be to write to them asking them to draw attention to the issue. CorporateM (Talk) 16:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I, too, thought that AfC would be an appropriate venue for someone with a COI. I hope CorporateM will understand that there are some big issues to address, but I'd like to see clarification of this issue at some time.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 16:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem of paid editing won't be solved without including the broader, and much more common issue, of unpaid POV pushing and personal attacks on biography and company articles. If I had a bio on Wikipedia, or my company had an article, and they were targets of the negativity and attack-style criticism I see all too often, you can bet I would pay professionals to make it right. The main method that is suggested to fix such issues seldom works ('oh, just mention the error on the talk page' — even that is being attacked by some people here). First Light (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

What concerns me is a narrower problem, one that is more self-contained then the endless and frustrating problem of POV pushing. What concerns me is the use of Wikipedia, very openly and above-board and in compliance with policies, for purposes of corporate image-building. Again, the question is whether we're concerned about that. Do we want Wikipedia content to be so directly and significantly influenced by the subjects of articles? Does it matter to us that John Smith, corporate executive, has a profile in Wikipedia that was created at the behest of John Smith's paid editor? Does it matter to us that, by having an article on John Smith, we are saying that he is more important that his competitor Sam Jones, who does not have a paid editor pushing his cause on Wikipedia? The tendency is to narrowly focus on "adding content" and "being sure the content is neutral and well-sourced" without seeing how damaging and wrong it is for Wikipedia's content to include such promotional content without disclosure to readers.

Sometimes even editors have trouble, looking at the talk page, determining the impact of COI editors in articles. In one real-life instance in which a COI editor was and IS the prime mover on the talk pages of a corporate article, I can only find one disclosure, on an archive page. There was an early article draft, but it has been deleted at the request of the COI editor, so it is not possible to determine the extent to which that article, on a rather controversial company, was influenced by the company.

Again, the question is, is this a desirable situation? Do we care? Does Jimbo Wales care? Coretheapple (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a painfully tricky one. My volunteer job with WMF and WMUK is largely PR from the WMF/WMUK side. And I liaise with good PR people who genuinely love Wikipedia and wouldn't want to mess it up, but would like their clients represented appropriately. So, meet the fractal nature of reality.

One way I find to square the circle is: is anyone actually looking at these pages? Often companies go "OH NO OUR WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE IS TERRIBLE" - but if it's had <100 views in the last month, that arguably doesn't constitute a PR problem.

In the general case, I very much concur with your concern. I will note that IMO, it helps a lot that the media and general public are way more rabid on this stuff than Wikipedia is - so we can say "well, it's in our rules, but the public will totally crucify you" - David Gerard (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Just saying, don't forget to count the number of time the article appears on the top of search engine, with excerpts, and probably people didn't click it, but they definitely read it. Bennylin (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It's really a question of values and how Wikipedia wants to be perceived. I've said before that Wikipedia editors commonly are much more concerned about the p.r. needs of the subjects of articles then about the reputation of Wikipedia itself. The irony is that Wikipedia is sacrificing its reputation so flagrantly and not getting a cent! At least the publications that run advertorials and sponsored copy benefit financially by doing so. Coretheapple (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Coretheapple, "corporate image-building" is just another form of POV pushing. It's all part of the same problem. Until POV-pushing that attacks individuals and corporations is stopped, there will continue to be pushback from the individuals and corporations who find their WP pages being used as attack articles. Whether the editors are paid with cash to promote a positive view, or "paid" with the emotional high some people get from attacking someone, they are both POV-pushing and getting a perceived reward for doing it. First Light (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

If it's POV-pushing, then that's yet another reason to be concerned about it. Coretheapple (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, any POV pushing, whatever the motivation and payment, is something to be concerned about. The paid (in cash) variety is only a tiny fraction of the overall problem. First Light (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I said if it's POV pushing. It isn't always. I described the problem above, and I'm not going to repeat myself. The issues you raise are total red herrings. Coretheapple (talk) 04:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

No, POV pushing and COI editing are both part of the same essential conflict that paid editors have, and not red herrings. In fact, look up WP:Paid editing and you'll see it's on the COI page. First Light (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I'll add that I agree that something needs to be done, if it can, about any POV-pushing work-for-hire articles that have been exposed. But to ignore the revenge-editing (see User:Qworty) and attack-editing that I've come across several times would be taking the ammunition away from only one side of the dispute. Outlawing paid editing will only drive them underground. The only practical solution that has been suggested so far is to pay more attention to POV editing. First Light (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:OUTING / WP:COI

I indefinitely blocked the last PR person I encountered as they were trying to manipulate Wikipedia's medical content to their companies commercial advantage. I than had to put up with a couple of months of real life attacks by this nasty firm as they had docs on their pay role email my colleagues with me cc'ed to insult me professionally / attempt to put pressure on me to allow them to change Wikipedia. I am not easily intimidated; however, we need to do more to protect our editors from these sorts of folks / take a harder line toward these activities.

Supposedly if I would have published on this incident I would have been in violation of WP:OUTING and based on strict Wikipedia law could have been indefinitely banned myself. So what do we do about WP:OUTING? We need a clause that keeps it from protecting those who are being paid to be here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 11:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Shocking and disgraceful. Coretheapple (talk) 13:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

At first blush, this[8] seems ludicrous, an example of the mind-set that allows paid editing to flourish. It is. But I wonder if that isn't such a bad idea. Since WP:COI is just a guideline, and is viewed so casually by many at Wikipedia, maybe it would be the most honest thing to simply abolish the guideline, demote it to an essay as suggested, and publish a warning on every article that every article may have been influenced or even written by the subject and that Wikipedia makes no guarantees as to its impartiality, integrity or completeness? Coretheapple (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
What's so bad about being paid to write an article? Jimmy Wales gets paid far more than you or I could ever hope to earn from writing any article by simply talking about writing one. Eric Corbett 22:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
(ec) Like I said, it's up to Jimmy Wales. If he doesn't want Wikipedia to have any integrity, that's really his problem. But I think that, unless this situation is addressed, there needs to be a disclaimer at the top of every article for the benefit of readers. Coretheapple (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Every article? For the benefit of readers? Are you crazy? Eric Corbett 22:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, a disclosure at every article, at the top, to disclose to readers that what they're reading may be content provided by the subject of the article. Coretheapple (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem you mention Doc James is much more serious though, and that you feel unable to reveal the name of the drug company involved points to a serious problem with WP's handling of this issue. As it happens I was similarly pressured by a vaccine manufacturer a few years ago, although not on WP. It's got to stop. Eric Corbett 22:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

the counterpart to the policy on Outing is the policy on Harassment. Those editing on sensitive topics are well advised in most cases to maintain anonymity, though it is disgraceful to see it necessary in such a case. In particular, those admins who have possible professional vulnerability of this sort should ask for assistance in doing necessary administrative actions. See WP:Admins willing to make difficult blocks -- I think it was designed for this sort of situation. In addition, this is one place where I think the WMF should if necessary assist, because it's a matter of behavior and defense of the contributors. Anyone seriously harassing off-wiki a good faith wikipedia editor should be supported to pursue legal action if the situation is such to justify it. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you know of a single instance in which WMF has come to the aid of a Wikipedia editor who has been harassed? If so, that needs to be given maximum publicity and somebody should provide that information here, as I'd like to know if it has ever happened. If it hasn't happened, then I would suggest that it isn't likely to ever happen, and that it is pointless to express a "wish" for the WMF to do what plainly is not in its financial and legal interests to do. Coretheapple (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

@Coretheapple:, I know of a few, although I won't provide precise details. In one case, the WMF actively intervened and worked with law enforcement to have someone known to be harassing multiple Wikipedians (and several article subjects, whose articles the person edited) placed under a peace bond; the WMF retained counsel to liaise with law enforcement and district attorneys, the person has been arrested when they have violated the peace bond, and their peace bond has been expanded. Since there are real people involved, I won't identify either the person subject to the peace bond or that person's targets, but this was a rather big deal. Risker (talk) 07:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Do note that if such a thing were to happen the parties involved may prefer to keep such a thing private. Doing otherwise isn't denying recognition and may in fact feed the trolls. L Faraone 04:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. If there are any such instances, they can disclose it in generalities, giving the circumstances but not any identifying characteristics. Otherwise, I don't see the point of holding out hope that the WMF will intervene on behalf of users. It strikes me as a very remote possibility. Coretheapple (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

When Internet Brands sued me personally over suggestion that we invite Wikivoyage to join us, Sue Gardner called and offered to provide legal assistance to myself and the other person involved in the case. The legal support they provided was amazing. Literally one of the best firms in the world. We won and I am grateful to the foundation. Enough so that I gave a substantial donation this last year. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that, but your situation[9] doesn't seem at all analogous to the harassment described in this section. Coretheapple (talk) 05:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

No, but it sure is a very good answer to your question "Do you know of a single instance in which WMF has come to the aid of a Wikipedia editor who has been harassed?" --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not. This was a dispute between the WMF Foundation and an outside website in which a user became involved. That's very much an outlier, and certainly not even remotely comparable to the harassment User:Jmh649 encountered. Coretheapple (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

IB never sued the WMF, they denied ever having issues with the WMF. They sued two Wikipedia editors personally. It was about us suggesting we allow Wikivoyage to join the WM movement. There have not been many lawsuits against Wikipedians. I heard about one that is going on right now that the WMF is involved in. Some lawyer wanting to get the personal details of a Wikipedia so that she can hold him liable for the edits he made. I have banned the lawyer in question per No Legal Attacks. Do not know the specifics of the case though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Monsanto: a case study

I am inspired by Jimbo's comment that made so much sense: part of the problem is that we all tend to stay in our own little corners, what we're aware of is then limited. So I want to share a bit of my experience and possibly elucidate what may be symptoms of the problem at hand. I am asking this be used as a case study to view this larger problem from the standpoint of one who builds and updates articles, from boots on the ground. My work at Wiki has always been pretty simple: I like to update articles and tend to stay very safe with my wording and use of sources, because I don't want any hassle. And I normally don't get any. In other words, I apply the guidelines properly and have never been in trouble EXCEPT when I come near a Monsanto-related article.

If someone were 'attacking' Monsanto (or any other company's) pages, the company could easily use the ticket system and get help. On the other hand, a lowly editor who is following all the rules, does not have this sort of help when the opposite is happening: the company's article(s) being whitewashed. If I want to address the problem, I have to figure out time-consuming and tedious noticeboards where I am inevitably drowned out by the very same editors who are causing the problem.

I found the March Against Monsanto article up for deletion a few days after the march took place at the end of May. I decided to find sourcing and build the article, thinking a 2 million person march certainly deserves one. Working on that article has been a maddening and completely loony experience, and it's continuing to this day. It's a daunting task to try and give you the whole story, I'll try to focus on just one example. I was the only editor working to build, rather than to trim, delete, argue, or minimize information about the event. I immersed myself for 4 days in every bit of media coverage I could find. I doubt there is any RS about the march that I haven't read. I simmered it all down and made a nice article. The entire thing has been obsessively worked on and changed to make prominent the idea "GMOs are completely safe and no one worth their salt has any doubt". Sections were rearranged so that this statement would be one of the first things you read. The introduction to the march origins, for example, were moved down and finally trimmed to the point of being unrecognizable and uninformative. It was turned into a refutation of the protesters' concerns and this was done by an incredible team of people. I mean, these people have their act together. They don't let even a minute pass by without reverting me (please look at the edit history just from today!). They seem to be an endless bunch, some do the dirty work of taking me to noticeboards, some are very polite, but in general, all seem in complete unison on every issue. And all - probably up to 15 folks - for the past three months blatantly misused a source to massively lowball the march turnout. This one single source stood alone when all others such as CNN, RT, LATimes, Yahoo, etc., used the protester's estimate of "2 million" attendees. The source was from a small media outlet and was published hours before the march had even begun in half of the world (this is a global march). The source claimed "200,000" people showed up. This is the same number media had been given by organizers as a projected turnout. I pointed out the obvious problem that this can't possibly be used to make a claim about turnout numbers over and over and over, on talk pages and when initially trying to edit the entries. In 3 separate Monsanto-related articles this source alone was used to make a claim that is found nowhere else on the web, that there was a 'range of estimates'. I was ignored and the rules governing proper use of sources were too, at Monsanto and Genetically modified food controversies as well as MAM, and by an astounding number of people. How could so many people all agree to something that is so wrong? I took this source to the RS noticeboard the other day, and no one disagreed with me. Even the one who entered the source to Wikipedia, Jytdog, agreed the author didn't know what they were talking about. Here is a big problem - it is too late. Wikipedia sat with this claim on three pages for three months. In July, the NYT published a sprawling piece about genetically modified oranges; it was probably 150+ lines, and the March Against Monsanto was mentioned in passing (one sentence) at the bottom of the article. The NYT used a "few hundred thousand" but did not give their source. Since the only place this number can be found through a search engine is here on Wikipedia, I have to assume we became the source for this number. Since the noticeboard (after feet were held to the fire), the editors all agree the first source was bogus, but now they are using this blurb in the NYT oranges article to maintain that media gave a range of numbers from a few hundred thousand. For the record, there was no estimate done by anyone but the march organizers - which is par for the course, media outlets don't put resources into investigating such things. Media had no problem citing organizers and moving on. In no RS will you find any talk of a range of estimates except here. Our editors are feeling perfectly comfortable second guessing RS and inserting their own doubts and leanings, regardless of whether they have sources that meet RS requirements or not. From the reactions at the RS noticeboard, it is obvious these editors knew all along it was wrong to use that source. And now we have rewritten history in favor of a very large company. Please let it sink in what this slight shifting of the facts means to Monsanto's image. Using sources properly, we can only state the number given by the organizers, citing them. It's fair to say "no independent estimates were made" too. But this has not been acceptable to any editor. They insist on adding the lowball number regardless of sourcing.

So what is uniting this group if it isn't the Wiki guidelines? If you were to guess what PR activity or image management might look like, would this be it?

Where is support for honest editors trying to use guidelines simply and appropriately on a page like this? I have never been taken to a noticeboard for my behaviour until working on this article. Three times they have tried to get me banned, all on false claims and always they failed. It is a wretched experience trying to work amongst these people. All the rules are thrown out the window, and I am standing alone. I don't know where to turn. It is an impossible undertaking to work on any Monsanto-related article unless you are in alignment with whatever MO they're operating under. Today i tried to remove the bogus source after consensus had been reached. Within 5 minutes I had been reverted three times by three separate editors, leaving the bogus source on the page and leaving me looking at another possible 3RR violation, unable to fix the page. This article gets 200 hits a day, yet we've got a team of editors ready to revert in seconds. Nothing resembling this happens at any other page I've edited. It is a wholly different experience. The three editors today had no regard for the noticeboard outcome. One I had never seen before, but noticed on their talk page a welcome note from the very guy who first tried to get me banned. The last one to show up hadn't made an edit in months, and the last edits were to this same article. It's like there are accounts being used when needed in order to keep others clean. There are obvious socks and there is obvious teamwork. I know that Wikipedia is being abused, as are the honest editors who try to edit/correct this page. I can't stress this last part enough. I am very close to giving up on Wikipedia because of what is happening with this crowd, and the fact that although I have spoken out numerous times, no one seems to care much and no one steps in to help.

Right now they are arguing on the MAM talk page that RT shouldn't be used as a source for the March. RT just so happens to be literally the only media outlet covering tomorrow's March, and was the most prolific source covering the last one. Just do a search for "March Against Monsanto", you'll see. Can you imagine how frustrating these endless games are for an editor? Now I'm looking at two more RS noticeboards: one for use of the oranges article, and now RT. Yet, I have a paying job that starts back up tomorrow.

Wikipedia is being taken over, and good editors are leaving because of it. So while you're looking at whether a certain PR firm is operating under the radar, I'm telling you this kind of activity can be seen by edits and talk page entries, by patterns of behaviour observed from ground level. We must be able to speak of the problem based on symptoms alone, untethered by a requirement to prove COI. We must have an easy way for someone like me to blow a whistle on ridiculously obvious BS such as with Monsanto articles, and to receive help, not to be asked to do this all alone, with little more than "good luck with your noticeboards". Thank you for hearing me out. petrarchan47 t c 09:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

As the one editor included in this supposed cabal who is named (but not notified, argh), I will respond briefly. User:Petrarchan47 has been pursuing me with accusations of bad faith editing for a long time now, and was part of the reason I took the extraordinary step of bringing myself up at COIN to be investigated. Results are here. I first want to acknowledge that bad faith editing is a problem. The problem cannot be eliminated without changing the essence of Wikipedia - an open project built on a pillar of civility is by definition vulnerable to bad faith editors. So Wikipedia has created procedures to manage bad faith editors - to identify and reprimand or block them. However, being aware of a vulnerability, and accusing editors with whom you have differences, of working in bad faith in the midst of a content dispute (or a series of them), are two different things. Assuming bad faith is corrosive, as it renders consensus impossible. In discussions at the relevant Talk page and on the RS board where she brought the issue of sources for number of protesters that she discusses above, petrarchan has not even tried to work toward consensus - has not heard or responded to concerns others have raised (including third parties at the notice board). Why should she, when she believes that editors opposed to her position at the article, are bad eggs? ABF (and especially belief in a conspiracy of ~~ABFers~~ bad faith editors) is corrosive not only for the project - it is hurtful to the editors against whom it is pressed and leads to burnout of editors who work under it. It is unfortunate. That's all I wanted to say.Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)(made a fix, shown in strikeout and italics Jytdog (talk) 00:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC))

I think that paid editing, contrary to policy, is disgusting. I'm appalled at the huge SPI case. I'm appalled at what happened to DocJames above. These are cases of where Wikipedia really needs to do whatever it takes to stop the disruption of everything that Wikipedia stands for.

But the Monsanto area is a case study of another problem, and we have to be careful about it, too. There's a difference between editors who are unscrupulously subverting NPOV in order to advance a conflict of interest, and editors who are involved in an NPOV dispute, who are accused without evidence of having a COI, in order to try to get the upper hand in a dispute. I became involved in the Monsanto thing because I noticed an RfC, and since coming upon it, I have been appalled at the use of bogus accusations by editors on one "side" of the dispute. Jytdog ended up feeling the need to raise a WP:COIN thread about himself, in order to clear his name. An oversighter examined the case closely, and concluded that the accusations were groundless. Petrarchan did indeed ask at WP:RSN about those sources about the numbers of marchers. A few previously uninvolved editors responded, and the truth is that they consistently replied that there are certain cautions that need to be applied, when sources quote the estimates made by the organizers of the march. Those editors were right, but Petrarchan refuses to accept that answer. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

This editor and another (User:Canoe1967) has consistently tried to imply that any editor who disagrees with them is a paid advocate of Monsanto. When they are blocked they come to support each other [10] and make conspiratorial allegations, claiming the article is controlled by a cabal, "faction" or "team". It is a case study in conspiratorial ideation, with no bearing to COI. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I care only about content. Anyone who contributes good content should be welcome here, and the contrary for those seeking to add false content; someone engaged in a crusade against a company, and someone defending the company must be treated equally: that is, without respect to whom they are. They are in my experience equally likely to be biased, and the only way to deal with it is to watch the content and the editing behavior. Tenacious arguments over detailed sourcing are usually a sign of conflict of interest, but the conflict on interest can be equally from any party, and in the instance being discussed, seems to come from both. That any one of us may have sympathy with one or another of the groups is irrelevant. This is the basic principle of user contributed editing and NPOV editing. Our way to apply the principle is to ask for attention from other editors. DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

When DGG said "and in the instance being discussed, seems to come from both", that caught my attention. It's what I, too, would have assumed, going into the dispute at the beginning. But as I've become intimately familiar with the dispute, I've become increasingly convinced that it's very disproportionate between the two sides. Strictly speaking, yes, I've seen some of it from both sides. There have been a few "pro-Monsanto" editors who look to me like suspicious SPAs, and a lot who have been unreasonably stubborn. But it's been breathtaking to me how much a couple of the "anti-Monsanto" editors insist, repeatedly, on casting aspersions, not only without evidence, but even after there has emerged definitive evidence to the contrary, and how unilaterally nasty those aspersions have been. It's like WP:RGW, and as long as one considers oneself on the side of the angels, anything goes. In spite of what those of us who believe in WP:AGF tend to assume, my experience is that this is a case study of where false equivalence just does not fit the facts. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Since you "care only about content," do you think that newspapers, magazines and print encyclopedias should accept content from the people they write about? If not, why should a lower standard apply to Wikipedia? Why should we get saddled with the planted articles and the content with sources cherry-picked by the subjects? Why should independent editors have to take time out from their paying jobs to fact-check, vet, and counter the work of people who do this for a living, and whose sole interest is in advancing the interests of their clients, and don't give a good g--damn about Wikipedia? Coretheapple (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

DGG, I have been suggesting the exact same wording that major outlets have used for turnout numbers (for the first march) to no avail. Today's Al Jazeera coverage mirrors the wording I have been suggesting. Maybe take a look and compare this with the way this same information is presented in our articles. Then see if the sourcing for our diverging coverage seems adequate, and if it's summarized accurately. It is very strange, in my experience, to have this much trouble adding well sourced claims, and keeping poorly-sourced fringe claims, out of articles. I wish someone would look into why this is happening. petrarchan47 t c 08:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Scientists off wiki are making the same observations about what is going on here. As for whether my participation on the MAM article makes me automatically suspect, my edit history should be reviewed for signs of Monsanto-hatred. Conjecture is a bit lazy when we have edit histories, and this automatic suspicion will only repel possible editorial help from others. Looking for POV on the other side, we see Jytdog has been supporting GMOs for years. Here is a comment from one scientist who noticed what I and others have. There are no excuses to continue to not look into this. Even if my heart were proven to be in the wrong place, it wouldn't solve or change Wikipedia's problem. Monsanto targets the heart of science petrarchan47 t c 18:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I have tracked the edits on the Wiki page, ‘The Seralini affair’ carefully and I can confirm that the edits I am referring to by Wiki Users jytdog and runjonrun were an attempt to remove balance from the page by removing any information in support of the study. It was vandalism on a determined and massive scale.If we believe that comments on Seralini’s study published in lay articles in the media and from scientists associated with various regulatory bodies deserve reproduction on a Wiki page, then it is only fair to reproduce those comments supportive of the study as well as those critical of the study. The history of this Wiki page is a sign of how desperate the pro-GM lobby is to control public opinion.

Wow, so that is "scientists off wiki"! Alternative source of information: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 65#Genetically Modified Food Controversies, and specifically what Someguy1221 said there. And I say this as someone who actually shares Petrarchan's concerns about the other editor, "runjonrun", who does indeed seem to be a source of concern. The problem comes with painting with a too-broad brush, and sowing conspiracy theories about editors who act in good faith, but with whom one disagrees. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Drawn from the same talk thread that User:petrarchan47 cites above, the user Pete Halwell-Jones said "... I did not say you were Jon Entine, nor have I ever thought you were. I said you replaced Jon Entine (“runjonrun”) as the Wiki User who deleted balancing comments on the “Seralini affair” wiki article." I note that Pete Halwell-Jones does not seem to understand that in Wikipedia, NPOV does not mean that we give equal WP:WEIGHT to every perspective. In any case, petrarchan47's continual raising of these concerns - without notifying me and in inappropriate places is rising to the point of harassment. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

@Petrar, independentsciencenews.org is an anti-genetics fringe website which claims, for example, that they have refuted autism having any genetic component, despite it being a strong factor in actuality. Do you seriously think mainstream scientists are found at websites called "independentsciencenews" run by an advocacy group? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Wolfie, since voting against User:Buster7 in their run for adminship based upon their having agreed with me on various issues at BP, and your use of the term "BP cult" to denigrate everyone who agreed with me (which in the long run, after three failed RfCs, includes the community as a whole) I've frankly had no desire to read a word you say. petrarchan47 t c 13:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's not by coy, I voted against Buster7 largely because he jumped to the defence of another editor (you) for edit warring, because you were a "wiki-friend", without understanding what was even going on (he called ANEW an RfC (diffs contained within [11]). That is not the sort of quality I would look for in an admin. I'm interested to see where I mention a "BP cult", diff? Not something I recall, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog has a long and demonstrable history that shows without a doubt a strong pro-GMO and pro-Monsanto POV. It is horrifying to think this person is allowed full control over the entire suite of Monsanto and GMO articles on Wikipedia. I am not surprised that when I speak out, I become the problem and target practice ensues. It is the same reason others don't stand behind me, sharing their experiences too. In the past, editors have spoken out and expressed basically the same points I am making. One editor decided to put to the test accusations made by User:Viriditas and check out one Monsanto-related article, where s/he immediately saw what struck them as an advert right in the intro. Their edit to bring a more NPOV tone was immediately reverted, and this respected editor agreed that the Monsanto situation deserves more investigation. User:Groupuscule is another who has pushed for more neutral GMO articles and was met with the same experience. Again, this glaring problem is obvious to many, on wiki and off. Editors who speak out have to pay a high price. Editors who challenge this stranglehold at the article level will likely have no success, and will meet in no time a group who seem to live for taking people to noticeboards. Grown adults who have no shame about spending a Saturday night digging up evidence for 3RR violation or whatever might stick, to remove opponents. I've seen it time and again. There is nothing normal about the number of people and amount of dedication, 24/7, shown to a 200-hit-per-day article such as March Against Monsanto. The arguments are in unison and always 100% pro-Monsanto, which is also a giant red flag. None of this is difficult to see; all that I have said can be proven if indeed anyone cares and dares to confront this activity. petrarchan47 t c 13:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Petrarchan47 I have asked you several times to stop making these accusations about me in inappropriate places and without notifying me. There are appropriate ways in Wikipedia for dealing with your concerns, and you have never used them. I am asking you again - please stop. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

So, if the tables were turned, and you found that I had been leaving copious environmentalist comments all over the internet, then found that I, along with a good sized group who agreed with my every word, had seeming control of all related articles on Wikipedia, would you say nothing? Even if Wikipedia did not give you the proper tools to address it, would you not seek those tools, or for the good of the encyclopedia, try to call attention to it regardless? What if, as is your case jytdog, I was responsible for two to three times the number of edits of any other editor on an entire suite of articles? I am offended that anyone would ask me to look the other way or to shut up. I am offended by what you are doing. Everyone should be. petrarchan47 t c 20:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry that this eats at you so much, User:Petrarchan47. I have asked you before if you would like to discuss this, and you refused. I do not believe that you are asking any real questions of me now, or that you are writing now in order to start a conversation with me. While I hope this jeremiad is giving you some relief (and I for one have heard how upset you are), please honor my request to stop attacking me without notification in inappropriate venues. There are appropriate venues for your concerns, where admins will take action (which I think is what you want) if they judge your concerns to have merit; please use them. And if you want to have a conversation, my Talk page remains available. This is the last time I will reply here. Thank you.Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting that you would assume that someone who does not agree with your point of view must intrinsically be an anti-environmentalist. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Pure unadulterated Bull. Your constant attacks against Jytdog have been shown to be utterly groundless, and Jytdog even voluntarily outed himself to an admin to stop the constant attacks (which still continue as is evidenced by your comment here). When you say "When I speak out, I become the problem ", what you really mean is "When I make very large accusations against people with zero evidence, people react badly". Well that's hardly surprising is it? One user claimed to have evidence against Jytdog but apologised after he acknowledged it was without basis. The fact that you continue to act the suffering martyr while simultaneously attacking all those who oppose you (WP:BATTLEGROUND), is galling. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Here, at top, is where you attacked a group of largely unnamed editors with "BP clique" (not cult, sorry), and further sought to undermine Buster7 using his defense of me as justification. He defended me in a 3RR noticeboard where you and bobryner brought completely faulty 'evidence' and lost your case. Why you would use a noticeboard as evidence when it shows you either don't know what you are doing, or are knowingly abusing them to get rid of opponents leaves me with only questions and little reason to take you seriously, ever. petrarchan47 t c 20:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC

Do not use quotation marks when you are not in fact quoting me, it is dishonest. I do no see anywhere I have used the phrase "BP clique" and I invite page watchers to search for the term in the diff. I have used the phrase "small clique", which is very different from your initial "BP cult" claim. Yes, there are a clique of editors (or wiki-friends) of which you are part of. Is that controversial? It is interesting you talk about "my case" at the edit warring noticeboard, since I do not recall filing anything at ANEW or commenting about the case per se. Instead I commented about conspiratorial ideation, e.g [12]. For those interested here is the ANEW thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive215#User:Petrarchan47_reported_by_User:Bobrayner_.28Result:_No_action.29. I will instead quote the closing admin: " It is hard to believe that Petrarchan47 is editing in a neutral manner on this article, but there is no 3RR violation." IRWolfie- (talk)

Information, please?

It would be very helpful if someone could place here a comprehensive list of where the Wiki-Pr sock investigation is situated. I found [13] but that appears to be just one of several devoted to this problem. Coretheapple (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The Morning277 LTA and SPI cases are the only places where significant investigation has been conducted on-wiki. There are a few minor mentions of Morning277 related stuff in some of the AN/ANI archives probably. The Signpost article relies in large part on research that was not conducted on-wiki. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

You will see from the notice at the head of the SPI that it has effectively been closed, since reports of meatpuppets and evidence based on editing the same articles are no longer accepted. That means that there is now no central list where Morning socks can be reported and discussed; we need an anti-Morning277 project page to do the job SPI would normally do. JohnCD (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Core of the problem: Medical science is less reliable than other hard sciences

Medical science has a weaker foundation compared to e.g. physics. This leaves room for activists to make propaganda in reliable sources. This makes Wikipedia vulnerable to COI editing in this topic area lot more than other topics, because sticking to the core policies of Wikipedia is not good enough for this field. A good examples are GM foods and electrosmog, many of the debates in this topic would have been closed a long time ago if physicists were in charge here.

To me this suggests that Wikipedia should change the NPOV policy by moving more toward SPOV and change the NOR policy to allow editorial decisions based on a debate about the science (which must itself be based on reliable sources) by the experts here. This would allow one to push back against POV pushing based on reliable sources where one merely cites reliable sources without discussing the fundamentals. Count Iblis (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Erm, fringe theories pushes by activists on wikipedia are in all disciplines. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but in physics they can't cite reliable sources. So, today there are no articles about cold fusion in journals such as the physical review. In medicine this is different, therefore the activists have a far stronger voice in that topic. The source of the problem is the way medical science is practiced. Theory plays a far less important role compared to physics, which leaves a lot of room for arguments based on opinions. While clinical trials will have unambiguous results, this isn't a solution to the general problem.

E.g. if a clinical trial involving thousands of people conducted over ten years shows that there are no statistically significant adverse health effects to eating bio-engineered spinach, that won't stop the anti-GM food activists from making claims about possible adverse health effects of bio-engineered foods in general. They would only have to address the specific results of the clinical trials conducted so far, they have never put forward a well defined theory that can be debunked, they are allowed to shape their arguments based on the outcome of the trials so far. This sort of behavior is not acceptable in the hard sciences. Count Iblis (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Really, this is not the place for an abstract argument about the relative purity of various branches of science. A small number of editors camp out on this page and systematically derail any attempt to have a serious, focused discussion about any project-related issue. I don't think they do so out of malice—but regardless of why they do it, these constant tangential digressions hijack every discussion on this page. If you want to talk about the theoretical underpinnings of physics vs. public health research vs. clinical medicine, feel free to host this discussion on your talk page (or mine). But this really has nothing to do with the question of how we handle paid editing and conflicts of interest on Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 17:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Obamacare and paid editing

This PR Newswire release re "Obamacare" & Wikipedia just came to my attention. It reads in relevant part:

"The Obamacare debate resulted in a legislative impasse and a government shutdown as both parties pour millions into promoting and defending their position. This time, however, the war of words is not limited to Congress and the news media. One of the new battlegrounds is Wikipedia, where every word in the 13,000-word Obamacare article is bitterly fought over." . . . 'This editorial war on Wikipedia is pretty representative of the high impact Wikipedia profiles now play in forming public opinion about political issues, brands, products, corporations. The stakes are often in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and so we find ourselves quite busy helping our clients achieve their objective on Wikipedia, while adhering to Wikipedia's notoriously complex rules and practices,' said Alex Konanykhin, CEO of www.WikiExperts.us, the leading Wikipedia visibility agency." Jimbo, are you there? What is your reaction to this? Coretheapple (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Forest and Trees

Virtually all the references we use are from persons that are compensated to write them. Do we realy believe that an unpaid filter is the answer to bias or is it the unpaid reviewer? That seems to be the argument. We explicitly deride free content such as blogs. I don't really care that a page that is rarely viewed is written by a paid PR guy. Nor am I worried that a highly visible page will dominate the community with meatpuppets. So what exactly are we deriding or defending? All content originates from a paid source. What outrage am I missing? --DHeyward (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The main deal is that COI content needs to be identified as such. Although that statement would meet with near unanimity among WP volunteers, in the real world those seeking to utterly obliterate COI editing only drive the practice underground. It is a paradox that those the most unforgiving of COI editing have the actual impact of making the consequences of COI editing more severe, not less — because an identified COI editor's work can be easily inspected and bad actors removed. The situation cries out for normalization. On the other hand, if the majority at WP really do want to play "Whack-a-Mole" to the death with COI editors, then the cult of anonymity needs to end, real name registration implemented, and the wikicrime of "outing" eliminated — because it is gonna be a battle of identification and total elimination and a very small percentage of COI editors are gonna be dumb enough to choose user names that will get themselves Orangemiked at registration. As things stand, neither normalization of the COI editing process nor war to the death is possible. Carrite (talk) 15:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I see your point for on Wiki but it seems futile when we rely on sources that would be considered COI content on wiki. For example, if we use an AP story for a source, it was written by a paid journalist with no COI disclosure. Political coverage, for example, doesn't reveal the party of the journalist and it's apparently not ethical to ask or disclose it. We don't seem to care, either. If that same journalist edited a Wikipedia article and sourced back to his AP article we'd whack-a-mole him even though he got paid to write the article, but didn't get paid to write the wiki entry, and any other editor could have added the material without a second thought. It still comes back to the fact that the original primary and secondary sources are usually financially compensated authors. COI is never disclosed for sources, so why do we need COI disclosed for content. We are generating free content from paid sources anyway so what's the real difference? At a low level we seem to understand this as we exclude "biased" sources (euphemism for being paid to slant an article) but we don't really call it a COI, we just discard it. I think we can still have anonymity because in basic terms, unread non-NPOV material is not really a problem (it's unread). Widely read material will rarely stay non-NPOV except for systemic bias among the community. Instead of focusing on COI editors, focus on removing non-notable material. I'd rather flag an editor for repeatedly adding non-notable articles, and ban them from creating new articles than hunting down COI editors. To paraphrase a well-known saying: "[COI] is like arseholes. Everyone has one" I think it's a truism that varies only by degree. --DHeyward (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I think we're more or less in agreement that the bottom line is the bottom line: it's not so important who the editor is, or who dropped what information in a journalist's lap that was regurgitated in a so-called "reliable source" (god, how I hate that term!), but rather maintaining NPOV in the final output at Wikipedia is the main thing. That's vaguely the way the status quo has shaken out in any event: obviously POV-named accounts get wiped out at creation, the worst of the COI-POV editors get bumped off "for obvious reasons," as the edit summary frequently reads... The more intelligent COI editors keep their heads down and write — and if it gets to be a POV problem it is fought about and if it is not, it's ignored. Wikipedia's broken decision-making process for controversial decisions results in gridlock that perpetuates the status quo and that's our status quo... Is it really a problem? Or a minor annoyance? Carrite (talk)

[2] Online only. By 2015 admins had started deleting "NotNow" RFAs which artificially reduces the unsuccessful figure

[3] Except unsuccessful ones by email.

[2001–02-4] Early RFAs were done by email and only the successes are known

[5] 33 had been appointed in early 2002

[6] Figures for unsuccessfuls for 2002 to 2003 are not available

[1] Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship

[exclude-7] Figures don't include bots (21) or renames/secondary accounts where the user was still an administrator afterwards (14). Many short-lived temporary desysops and extremely rapid desysopping/resysopping cycles (in the order of seconds/minutes) that do not involve controversial circumstances or account compromises, such as This brief test and this mistaken desysop, are not included either.

[restorations-8] For clarity, restorations (resysoppings) are shown as aggregate yearly figures based on the listing at Wikipedia:List of resysopped users, and "transfers of account", re-sysoppings through RFA, and most cases where adminship was removed and re-added within a calendar year (especially before 2015) are not included.

[jan2023-9] The extremely large number of desysoppings in January 2023 is due to the beginning of the new criterion for desysopping of inactive administrators.

[nov2022-10] The inactive admins for November 2022 were desysopped on 31 October of that year.

[june2019-11] The large number of desysoppings in June 2019 is due to the community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram.

[july2011-12] The extremely large number of desysoppings in July 2011 is due to the beginning of regular desysopping for inactivity.

[1]

[N 1]

[N 2]

[N 3]

[N 4]

[N 5]

[a]

[b]

[c]

[d]

[e]

[f]