User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 236

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 230 ← Archive 234 Archive 235 Archive 236 Archive 237 Archive 238 → Archive 240

New Buzzfeed News article about the Fram drama

[1] Benjamin (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

That is actually a pretty well-written and well-researched article. I suspect that the takeaway for most readers unfamiliar with Wikipedia's arcane insider subculture will be that an "asshole" got banned for a year, and that few tears will be shed for Fram in the big wide world. As for the slur, it is Buzzfeed's word choice, not mine. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Interesting reaction from the head of the WMF: "When you have to retweet your shitty pseudo-thinkpiece three times because no one cares." This seems to me to be exactly the sort of ill-considered reaction said in frustration that Wikipedians slip up and say from time to time but are now being told may earn them a civility ban courtesy of the foundation. It is indeed frustrating to have the foundation suggest that our model of civility is not working and that they will impose their model of civility upon us... and then see this. 28bytes (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Huh? Your comment seems like a personalized statement, and a reach of irrelevance concerning a different website. As to the article, the description of Wikipedia seemed like a closed network of power users some of whom abuse others. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Jimbo, I'm not on Twitter, so I can't confirm who liked what tweets, but I know you are, so I'll ask you to check. Is it true that users with Twitter profiles "Trust & Safety @Wikimedia/@Wikipedia" and "Community & Audience Engagement Associate" both liked your CEO's tweet? --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't use twitter much, I saw 14 likes but none matched those profiles (I think...). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
That doesn't seem to be the consensus here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
@Casliber: - I see 4 (UPDATE: 3) Twitter users who liked the tweet, who have the following descriptions:
  1. Joe Sutherland @jrbsu Trust & Safety @Wikimedia/@Wikipedia.
  2. jdforrester @jdforrester Coder @Wikimedia
  3. Gregory Varnum @GregVarnum Advocate / policy wonk / tech geek / @Wikimedia Foundation employee.
  4. Joseph Seddon @JosephSeddon Free Knowledge advocate (UPDATE: Seddon has reversed the like) starship.paint (talk) 05:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Casliber - I think I screwed up my ping. starship.paint (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Jimmy, This is a deplorable comment from our CEO. Our community continues to rip itself to pieces, but rather than deal with that, the CEO goes into childish invective toward a journalist covering the story – and is 'liked' by the staff for it? This is utterly contemptible. Please send these people on some form of "how not to piss off your entire community" course and try and instil some basic common sense into them. Blocking Fram for what looks like an extension of civil, then coming up with nonsense like that.... can the WMF staff actually not see how that's looks? Are they so far down the rabbit hole that they'd have lost all sense of perspective? It looks like we've gone another week without anything positive from the WMF or the BoT. There is more than just a feeling of 'beginning of the end' over all of this. - SchroCat (talk) 05:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
@Floquenbeam: (facepalm) I stand corrected. I didn't see their epithets and was just looking for role accounts. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Likewise, someone from the "Organization" said to Buzzfeed Uncivil behavior, including harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism, is against our Terms of Use, which are applicable to anyone who edits on our projects. However, while the terms of use do list harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism, it does not list "Uncivil behaviour" as a TOS violation that compares to harassment, threats, vandalism, and the like. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Excellent article. I suspect the WMF believes that by doing the minimum all this will eventually just blow away and things will settle down. A billion words written here on the site won’t change a thing, but 200 words in a news article is far better, and that’s where this needs taking - off the site into the fresh air. The WMF needs exposure to publicity, unless those concerned are planning to spend their entire working lives at WMF, bad press should concern them. A good start is mentioned in the article “ Editors and admins have proposed various protest actions ..... freezing the main site page, and forking all of English Wikipedia.” That would attract a lot of public attention. I know nothing of Fram or his actions, but I do know it’s the Arbcom’s job to deal with him and not the WMF’s. Giano (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Since posting above, and looking at section below. It seems Ms Maher is quite capable of demonstrating her unsuitability for her job without any help from the editorship. Giano (talk) 11:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Fundraising + Brand awareness

Back during the rebranding discussion thing that happened back earlier this year, I pointed out that the donation page message you have there is a bit dated. It's been several years since it's been up, and the movement has grown substantially. I wrote

There is an opportunity here to update this statement and mention the Wikimedia movement as a whole, alongside the other Wikimedia projects. Mention that the Wikimedia movement originated with Wikipedia, but has since grown substantially, and that not only is there a free encyclopedia, but also free image and other media repositories (Commons), free dictionaries (Wiktionary), free repositories of historically important sources (Wikisource), free knowledge databases (Wikidata), free tree of life projects (Wikispecies), and the like.

Likewise, a statement that funding doesn't only go for tech and keeping things running, but also towards [insert a couple of strategic goals], including collaborations with GLAM, outreach, helping Wikimedia chapters, or whatever else it is you do with that $100M you get.

This would also apply during the banner design state of fundraising campaigns.

I don't know if word of that suggestion has reached your ears yet, but I figured a direct appeal for a newer statement would not hurt, and something to keep in mind during fundraising. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

That would certainly be more informative, but sometimes it seems like they want people to think they can barely afford the servers. Benjamin (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
"Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales said Thursday that the free online encyclopedia is in good financial shape, although increasing mobile phone use may cut into future donations." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Volunteers are beginning to turn anti-vandalism bots off in protest

Jimbo, bots do a huge amount of work to keep the encyclopedia usable, and if this sort of thing continues, it will be terrible. I've experienced harassment in the form of WP:TAGTEAMs motivated by politics, gender, and both. What makes the Fram situation so bad is that there are so many outright terrible abusers who have been ignored in favor of a prominent critic of Foundation missteps in the past, which looks terrible. I've decided to stop editing until this is resolved in a way that shows the Foundation is more interested in addressing the obvious out-in-the-open abuse instead of vindictive retribution towards your critics. EllenCT (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

For me, what is more important is that the foundation works with the community - if they think change is needed, send in ambassadors that work on the Wiki, with established community processes (and, where needed, with the community to establish new processes). Using the technical ability to lock-out users or lock-in pages is doing nothing to solve what are essentially social problems. Even a benevolent dictator (assuming good faith) is still a dictator - and more to the point, despite trying to do well, does not usually have the knowledge and understanding necessary for good decisions. I was honestly struck by the ignorance about the current situation displayed by the ED in her tweets. It would probably be a good idea if every WMF employee tasked with more than menial work would spend an hour or so of their daily time on Wikipedia, just to avoid losing contact with the community. And maybe when hiring deciders, serious experience on Wikipedia should be in the skill profile. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Another veteran administrator packs it in because of the WMF power grab

Words worth reading:

"Anyway, I've resigned my adminship. I acknowledge I'm doing it under a cloud, so regardless of the result of the ArbCom case, I will need to go thru an RFA to get it back. I cannot imagine going thru that again, so this is for keeps. I'll really miss it; it's mostly been fun, and I hope somewhat useful, and a bigger share of how I've spent my free time than is healthy. But I find it increasingly humiliating to participate in something when the higher powers in the organization have such contempt for me and my peers (and my betters, the people who actually write articles). It is irrefutable that the WMF CEO thinks I am a free, easily replaceable work unit, a cog in the machine that allows her to travel the world. Those who don't drink the Koolaid are to be mocked. It is irrefutable that the WMF thinks of itself as the Master, and local communities as the Servants. Complain, and they will find a way to remove you under false pretexts. It is 99% irrefutable that regardless of Doc James' good will (I'm sorry for not waiting longer, Doc, I know this situation is painful for you), nothing is going to come of this; the WMF's plan is, and always has been, to simply wait it out.
"I am no longer in any sense a part of the power structure of this site." --Floquenbeam

LINK

How many administrators and bureaucrats does this make, is anybody counting? Of course, WMF probably thinks En-WP really has 1,200 administrators, whereas the actual core who does the work is probably more like 200... Carrite (talk) 02:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Someone is counting: Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation's_ban_of_Fram/Summary#Resignations Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Geezus...it's up to 21 atm. Shearonink (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The staggering lack of leadership from the WMF

Hi Jimmy. In my 13 years contributing to Wikipedia, I have not been compelled to reach out to you directly, until now.

The crisis that has beset this project is not going away, and time will not heal all wounds. At every touch point, the WMF has failed to get in front of this in any meaningful way that would lead to restoring the confidence and trust of the volunteers who build and maintain this fifth most popular website. It truly puzzles me that, more two weeks after the Fram ban, the board of trustees has still not managed the finite task of simply responding to the concerns of several hundred devoted volunteer editors. There has not been so much as a statement of solidarity, or even a plausible indication of exactly why it's taking so long to formulate a response.

I'm taken aback by the utterly dismissive attitude of Jan Eissfeldt, Lead Manager of Trust & Safety, and the crass public comments of the executive director Katherine Maher that can only be interpreted as disdain and disregard for the members of this project. This culmination of her thoughts on the matter after all this time? "When you have to retweet your shitty pseudo-thinkpiece three times because no one cares."

No one cares? The author of the BuzzFeed article cares. I care. I hope the board cares. I know hundreds of editors care.

Someone needs to light a fire under the board of trustees, before the fire here gets completely out of control. You are in a position to do that and your legacy is at stake. Good luck and kind regards - - MrX 🖋 11:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Off topic
Oh look, my watchlist informs me that now MrX is even lobbying here! Why is it that certain folks just don't get that the scriveners don't own the place and are entirely at will volunteers. That reminder is just *such* a breath of fresh air (though I'm perfectly willing to assume that the WMF wasn't trying to worry all those who act like they own the place... ). SashiRolls (talk • contribs) 12:21, 2019 June 28 (UTC)
SashiRolls, would you please stop following MrX around. You have a longstanding dispute with him and this level of hostility is just not appropriate. El_C 16:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Your last indefinite block was for, to quote, "harassment, intimidation and generally NOTHERE". I'm starting to wonder why that block was rescinded by the community. You were starting fights with editors in the very appeal you made, as I remember all to well.[2] Mr rnddude (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
JW is well aware that I was blocked for exposing Sagecandor's astroturfing. I imagine he is also aware that Sagecandor/Cirt was evading a topic-ban and had a lot of support in the "community". Some thought it was lucky that I pointed out the problem, others thought it was because I could read. The latter were probably more correct than the former, because being prosecuted by a sockpuppet evading a topicban is never lucky. Also, your "last indefinite block" is a rhetorical flourish implying that it happened more than once. Sorry to disappoint you, but in fact, Cirt is the only sockpuppet prosecutor who ever managed to rally enough support at AE to block me for pointing out their obvious subterfuge. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 00:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
"staggering lack of leadership from the WMF" is the best way to describe this. I posted in a section up above that CEO's normally respond very quickly to potential brand tarnishing incidents, at the very least to reassure customers (or in this case the volunteer editor community who built the thing that everybody donates money to) that the leadership is aware of what's going on and working on solutions. It's quite surprising to see the CEO of the WMF take to twitter to stoke tensions and say she didn't ever respond because "very few folks have asked me directly." This is not the transparent, inspiring leadership behavior that I would expect. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I concur with the "staggering lack of leadership" assessment of the WMF. In particular, I call out Maher on this. It is her job to get out in front of this, as MrX notes. The brand is being tarnished, and rather dramatically so. Maher's response on this is minimal at best, and apparently based solely on Twitter, where she has made more tweets in the last 24 hours than she has EVER made on en.wikipedia, and 6 times as many as she's made in the last year on meta.wikimedia.org. Maher's had three years to get the house in order, and this is the best that can be mustered? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree. If you are going to try out a new process, pick an easy test case, one that won't generate huge controversy so that you can discover bugs and work them out before tackling harder cases. Starting something new by banning a 100,000+ contribution administrator was not bright. Having no pre-prepared response was stupid. Dithering while the wiki burned was even worse. Jehochman Talk 17:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Eh, more and more it seems like it was the right thing to do just executed poorly. PackMecEng (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • How many more you gonna lose Jim? How many more admins is acceptable. How many more editors? Say something. 2001:4898:80E8:7:D292:1747:E610:2C3F (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I've had User:Amalthea (bot)/userhighlighter.js/sysop.js on my watchlist for several months, and as a Wikipedian for 13 years it's been heartbreaking for me to see the number of resignations in the past couple of weeks. I really don't want to follow the same way (see statement on my user page), but at the same time if nothing is done soon I feel I'll have to, just to get away from the miserable and distressing atmosphere that pervades Wikipedia at present. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 22:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
    Your statement reflects what a great many of us feel about this dark time.- MrX 🖋 22:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Jimbo. Floq resigned. That may not mean much to you, but it means a hell of a lot to me. It would be nice if you would start saying things, especially helpful things. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
    • And not on Twitter. --Rschen7754 00:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
    • It was very thoughtful of him to return the tools given the drama it caused when he requested them back. PackMecEng (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
      • PackMecEng, I find it difficult to parse your words. I don't even know if Floq actually requested them back, or if they were offered back because the process was out of process. What I do suspect in your tone is a complete lack of good faith, and I am wondering if you aren't simply blaming the victim. That victim, BTW, isn't Floquenbeam: it's the community. If indeed you just came by to drop some snark, I'd like to ask you to just stay away next time. Drmies (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it's snark Drmies. Floquenbeam did request the tools back, explicitly to see if the WMF would make good on their threat of further sanctions.1 Mr rnddude (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Mr rnddude, thanks for clearing that up. But I just do not see how the recent drama is to be blamed on Floq, and if this editor indeed thought it was so thoughtful of Floq, they could have sent him a postcard, or left a nice note or a barnstar on his talk page, instead of leaving the accusation of causing drama on the best-known user talk page on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
@Drmies: Mr rnddude is of course correct. Floq requested his admin bit back after he said he would not. Since you did not seem to follow the situation here is a brief rundown. Floq lost his admin rights here after misuse of his tools to modify an office action. Then he requested his tools back here. Finally he requested his bit removed here. Now as to the drama, you don't think what he did to lose the bit in the first place caused drama? I don't care if you think it was right or wrong but it is hard to deny is caused drama. Second let me just offer this advice, do not comment on a situation if you do not know the situation. It certainly seems a lot of the heat from this whole situation is from not knowing what actually happened and why. PackMecEng (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I know a bit more than you think I know. SUUUUUURE Floq created drama--whose impact was negligible compared to the drama caused by the WMF. The thing that he did to lose his bit was widely supported by the community, which kind of makes it the right thing. So what you're doing here is just a bit of gravedancing. Floq was a great administrator and widely respected, he did the right thing, and here you are. And let's recapitulate: Mr rndude's correction does not deny or even address my claim that you just came here to snark around. If you respected Floq's decision you could have done so in an honest way: you're just here to piss on him. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Why change your story now? PackMecEng (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't think so. The WMF created drama when they banned an editor in good standing without credible justification, due process, and transparency. Everything that followed were attempts by other editors in good standing to ameliorate the situation. PackMecEng, I know you like to take the contrarian viewpoint, but your comments here seem especially shallow.- MrX 🖋 14:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely WMF caused a lot if not more drama, so what? The rest is, from both of you, is just a different point of view. It is good sometimes to consider a contrary view to see if you are actually on the right track. PackMecEng (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Drmies and I created the rest of the drama? How can anyone take you seriously when you say things like that?- MrX 🖋 15:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
@MrX: When I said The rest is, from both of you, is just a different point of view. was referring to the rest of your comment. Not that you two were the rest of the drama. I have no idea how you could take it that way... PackMecEng (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Jimbo, I'm in between coffee and dishes, and am only leaving this note to show that it is perfectly possible to take a few minutes to leave a note on your talk page--and maybe answer a question or two. Drmies (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's a semi-serious suggestion. Get the Communications people on the horn to John Oliver & any other (potentially) friendly former Comedy Central folks and lead the story... I think you've got some prog-think contractors with the connections to get this buried in laughter rather than tears, no? Poking around in the hive unprotected you get stung, but if you give your team the appropriate gear, apparently you can fill honeypots. (anyone want to find a happy ending for a rousing remake of "We all lived in a stinky submarine"?) 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 15:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Katherine Maher’s Shitty Tweet

  1. She tweets
  2. She denies targeting @Bernstein
  3. But he did retweet exactly three times.

I have no words. Jehochman Talk 10:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

But you're doing it all wrong. Instead of just starting your own section to talk about what people are already talking about in the section directly above, what you're supposed to do is:
  1. Imply, coyly, that you have secret knowledge of an offsite statement by a senior member of WMF staff that will shock us.
  2. Insist that you can't possibly tell us any more so as not to embarrass those involved.
  3. Ask the arbitration committee to investigate this thing you can't tell them about.
  4. Dither.
  5. Reveal, with a flourish, that the secret information you had was...wait for it...what everybody else had already been talking about for days.
  6. Ermm...
  7. Profit.
I hope that helps. -- Begoon 10:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Jimmy, if the goal of WMF was to improve civility on Wikipedia, it’s not working. Begoon, I am not responsible for the unrealistic expectations of others and I have a life outside Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 11:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Heavens, was I uncivil? If so, I humbly apologise. If I wasn't, and you just thought I was, then I apologise for that too. Sorry. -- Begoon 11:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
That’s quite alright good person. I won’t be ratting on you to the WMF and their feared T&S secret police. Jehochman Talk 11:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
The Bernstein Buzz Feed article has several words concerning the community, that the Wikipedia editor community at its core appears to be group of nasty power hungry administrators and power users. If so, the thing to do is praise the WMFban because it promotes leveling Users. And if you don't agree that the community is dominated by a nasty few, then you might think it's a lousy think piece Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
What do you call the power hungry people who’ve turned T&S into the secret police and use them to oppress adversaries? Jehochman Talk 11:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
According to the article, promoters of leveling Users, so the English Wikipedia community is not dominated by a network of nasty power hungry administrators and power users. Just look at one illustration of nastiness by the community covered in the article, abusing a woman just because they suspect her for getting in the way of what they want. Thus, a person in the article has to admit that's why the WMFOffice exists. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I suppose I should add, because facts are stubborn things, 1) the admin in issue was warned about their conduct, when we warn people, we regularly insist the person is 'on thin ice'; and 2) English Arbcom was informed about the warning and that an action was forthcoming, it appears the English Arbcom did not grok what that meant but they still had prior information. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Policy was changed in secret, without notifying the community. Total disrespect. On the flip side, yet Fram was having behavioral issues. What’s crazy is that WMF could have just explained it. All the evidence they need to make a case is there in public view. They don’t need to resort to any private evidence. Jehochman Talk 12:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, no. The policy was changed in public, you can't say the evidence is public but the policy change is not. (And, side note, the change was not what would be called substantive, ie. 'what can't be done by users', it's what would be called ancillary process, what are the varying the degrees of remedy.) Nor do you have a basis to insist that the evidence is public, among other things statements are often taken -- when statements are in private, they are not public. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC) (e/c parenthetical added, no change in meaning Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC))
Perhaps they think it adds to their gravitas or credibility, and that people will take them more seriously if they pretend to have secret information which is actually common knowledge? Of course, that would be a mistake in the long run, and probably make them look rather foolish, but I guess anything's possible. -- Begoon 12:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Adding, what's 'crazy', down right unethical and cruel, is expecting the WMF to dangle persons out there to be abused by the community (and we have seen in Buzzfeed reporting, the community abuse someone when all they have is suspicion). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
That's why any good system of justice provides the accused basic rights: knowing the charges, ability to refute the evidence, opportunity to file an appeal. Jehochman Talk 14:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
First of all, it's overwrought to call upon "justice" when what the community regularly tells people is this is a website not a justice center -- it is not about justice, it is about writing an encyclopedia on a website in cooperation with others. And second of all, it seems like a lie, the community that abuses upon mere suspicion is not interested in, nor about "justice". Finally, how many times do users here say 'oh, I don't know what I did wrong!', and the response 'yes, you do, and if you don't, you're just too incompetent' -- then 'it's not fair!' and the response is 'life's not fair.' People survive and thrive not being here for a bit, and there is still a very big world out there to live in if you are not here for a bit. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I feel like every organization everywhere should be concerned about justice and try to treat its employees and volunteers justly. Many do not. We should. Jehochman Talk 16:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
And many feel there should be world peace, etc, etc. but we are here to write an online encyclopedia with others to give away, and when we ban someone it's not because we have perfect justice nor perfect process, it's because despite our human frailties and human lack of knowledge, we think it on balance best to separate for a time. Now, perhaps some people do think the employees of the WMF are 'monsters', or other Godwin like things, but that does not write a single article and is almost certainly untrue. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker, Justice, justice, you shall pursue. It's pretty fundamental to a functioning community/society. Without justice, any attempt at a coherent community collapses. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 23:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC
No. Mercy is what matters. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Is that really admitting that? I'm not sure. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I think so. In the tweet where she said it was not a directed comment [3], an assumption of good faith could be made (if at a stretch) that she was not referring to the BF article. However, in her subsequent tweet she ties it altogether [4]. It's blatantly apparent her original tweet was aimed directly at the BF article. One could make the case that she was speaking in the abstract, and not specifically about BF, but this is a serious stretch as well. This would not stand up to scrutiny. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Per her statement at User_talk:Katherine_(WMF)#Responding_to_some_questions_and_concerns it doesn't seem so, but it is a little vague. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Using a healthy dose of WP:AGF, we can take it at face value that Maher really was not intending on commenting on the BF article. For the sake of the argument, let's go with that. With that as a given, it doesn't matter; the effect Maher generated is the same whether she was commenting directly on the BF article or not. The fallout is the same. Still going with the AGF, her attempts at explaining it are making people speak such terms as "obfuscate". I.e., it's making it worse. It was a distinctly bad decision for her to comment in the way she did, and her subsequent actions to try to correct that error have only served to make it worse. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

A sad note

For all that there is a genuine aspiration to keep private information about the Fram ban private. It clearly hasn't been a stellar success. It just moments ago came to my notice that one of the persons at least tangentially involved with this affair (I won't repeat their username but you are free to guess) as one of Frams victims has vanished their username. I suppose it is the Streisand effect. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

If their goal was to keep this information private, they failed spectacularly. Every banned troll knew exactly who she was within a few days. WMF should not promise confidentiality. The identities of harassment targets can usually be inferred. Their secrecy serves no purpose and undermines trust. It is dangerous to allow the police to operate in secret. Jehochman Talk 15:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
The identity of that specific person was not, I don't think, the secret that was being protected - especially seeing as their identity from those earlier interactions was already widely known. The secret is the identity/ies of the person/people who made the new complaints based on something Fram has done recently. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Aye. And she wasn't exactly a saint, either. Fram wasn't the only one who'd raised questions about their behaviour; they were just the most vocal. Not to mention that Fram, for the most part, honoured the terms of the interaction ban from what I understand, while she kept her rant against Fram on the top of her talk page. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 18:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Her t/p features a huge prominently displayed banner mentioning Fram, T&S and what not. It was not private, by any reasonable definition of the word and T&S should have expected a major blow-back on her, once they banned Fram. ∯WBGconverse 19:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
What? They should have expected it because someone just deserves to be harassed, or because everyone knows the community will find someone to harass? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
[redacted by author]
So what? The community is so dysfunctional, incompetent and cruel, it just has to harass someone? If you have an issue with a banner, the answer is not to harass someone. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
[redacted by author]
You stop it. You don't think someone is harassing, but you think you can stand here and say they deserve blowback because although they are not harassing, you will argue they are something like harassing anyway, under the proposition that 'it can be seen that way'. And on top of that, the community can harass because a third party will not tell the community that person made a complaint. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
[redacted by author]
No. I did not miss what you said, you responded to a statement of concern that in effect 'a person was harassed by the community within the last month', with the unethical rejoinder, that the person was not a saint. When someone is not a saint (and who is), it does not mean they should be harassed, just because a third-party will not tell the community they made a compliant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
[redacted by author]
So what? The community focuses on someone to harass, just because they can and then turns around to blame someone else else for their harassment for not telling them the person was involved. ('Oh, we're mad at the third party, so let's harass someone we think we can find'). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I see you are just looking for an argument. Very well. I am not going to waste time debating a stone wall. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 20:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Not an argument, just telling you that it seems creepy and worse for the community to harass someone, especially so when they say they are mad that some third-party would not say who they are. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
It's not that "some third-party would not say who they are", more like "some third-party refuses to give any explanation with regards to an involved third-party's ban and said third-party provides what information they can, some of which looks like it implicates the first-party". If the WMF had actually taken the time to explain why Fram's ban was limited, why they could not go thru ArbCom, and why our policies are flawed, we wouldn't be in this mess. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 22:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Again creepy and worse, no matter how many words are used to explain the anger at the third party. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The June 2019 Signpost is out!

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for making Wikipedia!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomSmithNP (talk • contribs) 18:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Thank you Jimbo! You do make the world better than ever! --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 19:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Fram controversy

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fram_controversy QuackGuru (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-06-30/Special_report Did Fram harass other editors? QuackGuru (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

For goodness sake don't stop w just Fram!!!

Jimb I'm one of not a few wiki peasants thirsty for a full reign of terror on caustic admins and other prolific eds to begin. ( - Btw from your pic w/i the BuzzFeed piece looks like you should start walking around the block more. I was there a month or so ago & it's worked for me. :~)--20:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I should be careful of what you wish for, remember Maximilien Robespierre and Philippe Égalité! However, also be aware Jimbo is not too fond of comparisons to the French Revolution. Giano (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Ouch. So you're saying Jimbo is just a bit too fond of cake, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Most certainly not, that would be “pot and Kettle” in my case.Giano (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
That's just the Good Ol' Alabama Boy FINALLY starting to show up. Nothin' he can do about it. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Enwiki also has problems in this area. Maybe this will be a little kick in the butt to also work on those. North8000 (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Now a positive program for a way out of this mess

1. It starts with an "I'm sorry." WMF needs to acknowlege that behavior-banning is not their purview (particularly secretly deliberated, unappealable behavior banning!); they need to acknowledge that they should have stepped back instead of digging in.

2. No matter what WMF thinks of him, Fram's ban needs to be immediately terminated "without prejudice" for being implemented later by Arbcom if the evidence so indicates.

3. Whatever Fram is accused of having done, behavior-wise, should be turned over to the proper channel for this to be handled, which is Arbcom. There has never been a case on this for him, the foundation made an end run around the system here. Let the system work, Arbcom works under non-disclosure agreements of non-public information.

4. Jan Eissfeldt needs to be immediatelty reassigned within the WMF establishment. He doesn't necessarily need to be fired (although that would send a message), but he absolutely needs to be removed from his current position of authority, having lost the confidence of the volunteer community.

5. If WMF is actually interested in some sort of "Universal Code of Behavior," this must be negotiated and debated with the various language communities (not just English-WP). Implementation by fiat would be a catastrophe like the Fram Affair, amplified, simultaneously occurring across multiple wikis.

6. There absolutely needs to be a written constitution delineating roles of the two entities, the paid staff and the volunteer communities. Let each community elect delegates, one for every 500 or 1,000 very active editors (100+ edits per month) or something like that, to meet either in person or with a series of conference calls to hash out details. There needs to be institutional "buy in." Perhaps the "universal code" negotiation could be made part of this.

7. Jimmy Wales needs to personally contact each resigning administrator individually, by email or on-wiki, makes no difference, passing along what has been done and what will be done going forward with respect to the Fram Affair, behavior policing in general, and asking each to reconsider their decision since we do need their talent and the way to stop the quits is by turning around the school bus.

8. The WMF board should start looking for a new ED by the end of the year. This is not strictly essential, politically, but it is getting untenable for the current ED to continue given the magnitude of the mishandling of this affair.

-- Tim Davenport /// Carrite (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Excellent plan. With emphasis on a new constitution, with broader changes, because the current one is at the fundamental root of this problem and many others. North8000 (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Carrite's plan is a path forward, Jimbo. The departure of so many excellent editors and administrators is shocking and disheartening to me and countless others. Things cannot continue like this. Do something. Do the right thing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I concur with the above. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Point by point, this is the best way out of this mess, with the exception that Eissfeldt should leave the WMF entirely given the entire de.wp superprotect debacle. He's unlikely to have much trust in the communities after this. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 18:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Carrite, Sorry, this is a non-starter. I understand the sentiment, but to assert that the WMF should give up the authority to ban an editor for behavioral reasons isn't happening. That's not to say that this incident was well-handled, and there's room for imprving the prcess, but I cannot imagine that the WMF would remotely agree that they would never institute such a ban. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
A nuclear option should remain in the new constitution, but treated as such. But in the big picture, the "WMF agrtee" is the tail wagging the dog. If they won't agree that the new constitution is binding, we'll replace them. North8000 (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • This is the cleanest way to resolve the community concerns at this point. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I mostly concur with this proposal, but would leave the firing and demoting to the people empowered to deal with that. I would also add, that there needs to be a forum for active, ground level dialog between the WMF and the enwiki community. A central noticeboard would work pretty well for that, but it would require that whatever WMF employees are assigned to liaise with the community actually respond to good faith questions and engage as equal partners. Anything short of that should be regarded as failure.- MrX 🖋 19:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
    @MrX, AFAIK Whatamidoing (WMF) is the usual WMF ambassador to we peasantry. In my experience she's generally fairly quick to respond to good-faith questions, even if the answer is just "I don't know, I'll need to get back to you". ‑ Iridescent 19:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
    Oh, I thought Whatamidoing was more of a technical liaison.- MrX 🖋 19:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, my assignments have always been tech-related, and officially, they still are. But in practice I'm interested in anything that affects my (volunteer-me's) 'internet home'. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I think this is certainly a great way forward, The WMF have had 2 (nearly 3!) weeks to say something or even do something and so it's about time it was moved forward be it through them or us, I appreciate things take time and all but 2 weeks of waiting as well as generic walls of text in the first few days doesn't cut it. –Davey2010Talk 19:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I heartily concur with Carrite's plan. Except that it doesn't go far enough - this is a golden opportunity for a thorough shake up of the WMF's structure and responsibilities, and something on the lines of MrX's suggestion while devolving much of the WMF's work to the communities or a joint community committee, with all major developments and castle-in-the-sky plans for the future to be decided by community referendum. That would avoid some of the stupid wastes of money. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Carrite has spoken some good sense. Is anyone that matters (in this instance, at the WMF) listening? Vanamonde (Talk) 21:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I support the plan, too. I'd especially like to encourage you to do #7. The many resignations represent a very severe hemorrhage of the project, and you are in a position to do some meaningful healing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think #2 can happen without removing T&S entirely. However, this seems a better plan than those proposed in WP:FRAMBAN. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • On #1, I would want them to continue handling bans related to law enforcement type stuff, such as child protection or threatening violence, but anyone who does those things should be banned globally and permanently, not for a year from a single project. However, what we should do is to codify exactly what situations will be handled that way, and then to ban someone for any reason outside of those would actually constitute libel. I also don't like the idea of a "rules committee"; each project should decide on its own rules (and in reality, the committee proposal would result in the English Wikipedia essentially setting the rules for everyone, and I doubt that's a situation other projects would welcome with open arms; we'd most likely see reactions very much like ours to the FRAMBAN). Let each project continue to set its own rules. But outside of that, I think this is a good starting point for discussion, especially actually codifying the respective roles of the WMF and volunteer communities. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll put a link to Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram#The WMF is disconnected from the editing community because I think it would be good for Jimmy to look at it. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, except perhaps for number 7. I, for one, don't need any message from Jimbo about anything. Deor (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Carrite. Unfortunately, I suspect your advice will fall on deaf ears. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • There is nothing in this proposal that suggests an effective way to handle editor harassment which is at the heart of this whole issue. ArbCom's open letter today states that they have not handled it well, at all. The Signpost article states that multiple editors had complained that they experienced harassment. WMF felt they had to step in because Wikipedia hasn't effectively addressed harassment and stalking when it occurs. I can't support a proposal that asks for replacement of WMF staff members when it doesn't provide a self-reflective critique on how Wikipedia can improve its inept mishandling of harassment complaints. If ArbCom admits that they aren't handling harassment complaints well, then of course, WMF will step in to fill the void of inaction.
Let's make the situation here one where WMF won't feel the need to step in because Wikipedia can handle policing itself. Now that is a proposal I would sign off on. Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • He Jimbo, this is just a note to indicate that there are people who don't agree with the mob, please take us into account as well. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

It is time for Katherine Maher to Go

Four more administrators down:

* Ad Orientem

* Beeblebrox

* Jonathunder

* DoRD


Awww, but no worries, there are 1,200 administrators, right? Carrite (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

On the other hand, most of those admins are from the active admins list, which has 520 names on it right now (and hasn't been updated with several recent resignations, so it'll have fewer tomorrow once the bot runs to update it). And that list only is based on activity as an editor, some on that list do very little with admin tools. This isn't the usual bit of a few admins getting removed because they hadn't been around in a year anyway; those had already left (at least for the time being) and their desysops were a formality. So, yeah, around 20 admins leaving matters. (That's not to say the non-admins who have left don't; many of those will be missed as well, but some of those will just quit editing and not say why). Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
My belief is the actual number of administrators on the front lines doing admin-type tasks on a daily or weekly basis is approximately 200. Generating that precise number would be a good topic for research. The community has approved five new Administrators this year, and if we get to double-digits, I will shout a round of beer. Carrite (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Carrite, You might find this table helpful S Philbrick(Talk) 14:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
@Carrite, you might also be interested in this table, which hasn't been updated for a couple of months but appears to be accurate before then. Although the recent unpleasantness has caused a drop in the 'active admin' count to 520, that still just brings it back to where it was in January, thanks to inactive admins returning in the meantime. Obviously that 520 figure doesn't take into account people who aren't acting in an admin capacity until this is resolved but don't see the point in formally resigning until it's clear which way the Board is going to jump (I have no idea of numbers but I assume there are quite a few), but in terms of raw numbers the resignations just bring us back to where we'd expect to be in terms of long-term decline trend. ‑ Iridescent 19:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Sphilbrick's table is extremely useful, but in terms of activity judged not solely by logged edits, Carrite's estimation of around 200 is probably more realistic and I would venture to say it's possibly even much less. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Misreading

Sory Jimbo, but I did read this as "waiting for Christmas to post it..." — O Still Small Voice of Clam 20:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Everything I did...

This weekend I was out on Lake Pepin in my sailboat. Alone. I was thinking of Wikipedia.

I thought of everything I did to lobby for the creation of the arbitration committee, to make it successful, to strike the balance between transparancy and effectiveness. I thought of the work I did as an early OTRS volunteer to ensure that it was the community and not the paid staff dealing with routine requests. I thought of the community backlash I endured from dealing with an administrator conduct matter where I could not defend myself without disclosing confidential information. I thought of all the times I turned the other cheek, and of all the civility discussions with Anthere, and the efforts to set limits, and lead by example, and to be the light for others to follow. I thought, in short, of everything I did to further the goals of a self-governing community.

And I thought of how we are now on the cusp of the moment where that no longer matters.

Peace

UninvitedCompany 19:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Very thoughtful of you indeed. However, I have been absent for a while, so what “cusp” is it exactly which is almost upon us? Giano (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Aah well, that is the question. Difficult to speculate fully as my crystal ball has gone very cloudy... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
It’s clearly very complex, rather like the people, in the section below, who appear to be supporting a statement which doesn’t exist. I’ve always said The WMF is staffed by very odd people - you have to pay well to get the best people and I expect they don’t. If you need my advice Jimbo, I am back now. Giano (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Support

+1 The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

+1 Jehochman Talk 19:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

+1 –Davey2010Talk 19:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

+1 Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

+1 yes, I have been thinking similar thoughts to this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

+1 Carrite (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  • What exactly are you referring to? And what's up with this weird header? Masum Reza📞 23:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • It is an expression of support for the statement above. - SchroCat (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Do you mean Uninvited Company’s statement or another one? Giano (talk) 10:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Giano, this one by Uninvited Company. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

+1 — Ched :  ?  — 15:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC) (to clarify: I agree that it no longer matters what efforts we make - the site will become what the WMF says it will become.)

  • No, it will not! There were far worse battles with the hidden powers and creatures of the night back in the early 2000s. We just have a new generation now, who need to learn the same lessons. I for one haven’t forgotten how just speaking German made you an enemy of the office. Soldier on and all will be well. Giano (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm certainly interested in the how. Even if I have to figure it out on my own, I'm fine with that as long as I have a link to start following. From my perspective, the new generation appear to have the servers in their (or their parents basement) these days and are capable of writing the closing chapters in the manner that they so choose. Still - I'm far from all-knowing, so I'm certainly willing to do a bit of reading ... or follow a bit of direction coming from a well reasoned source. That being said - it's great to see you still about Giano - I hope all is well in real life with you and yours. — Ched :  ?  — 20:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Speaking as a "creature of the night" - so far as Jimbo is concerned anyway - I think that Giano is quite right. It's very easy to roll over, but it's not very seemly, and in the end achieves nothing except having to roll over again and again in the future. Eric Corbett 20:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Giano: those battles in the early 2000s were way before WMF became a multimillion dollar enterprise, so the dynamics are different now and yes, the site will indeed become what the WMF makes it. 173.84.211.79 (talk) 06:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

+1 Benjamin (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

+1 Hello UC! How I envy time on that fine lake. And hello Cas and all. A comprehensive + thoughtful self-governing community (replicable in as many languages and facets as can be mustered) is the most interesting and important part of the projects. Let us make it also the most lasting. – SJ + 23:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

-1 Hi UC. I thought about the feelings behind your words "And I thought of how we are now on the cusp of the moment where that no longer matters. Peace" this morning in relation to the effort and contribution to Wikipedia that you made. And I made the connection, however tangential or sublime it may be, with the feelings, perhaps, of a mother and/or father who spends 18 years raising a good son, only to see him sent off, by their government, to die (or, perhaps, become mentally or physically disabled) in a war. This connection might have been stimulated by a 60 minutes episode last night on Ben Ferencz, a Nuremberg Trials prosecutor, wherein he made the unequivocal statement that all wars turn men into savages, full stop. So, with that convincing (to me ) assertion by Ferencz fresh in mind, coupled with my own personal experience of hearing a mother wailing at the funeral of a very good son who returned from Vietnam in a body bag, forces me to see your concern that your own hard work in helping grow an inanimate platform is on the cusp of becoming unimportant, as being, perhaps, trite and self centred, when compared to the daily and continual misuse of governmental authorities to utterly destroy all the hard work by good parents in raising good sons and, in effect, make many of those mothers' feel, I am sure, especially with fraudulent wars like Vietnam or the Invasion of Iraq, that all of that good work "no longer matters" when their sons come home in body bags; 58,000 in Vietnam and 4,000 in Iraq. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Nocturnalnow:, I find your comparison offensive and inappropriate at many levels. To characterize Wikipedia as an "inanimate platform" is as fundamentally mistaken as characterizing a town as "mere buildings and roads" or the U.S. Constitution as "words on paper." Wikipedia is many things and serves many goals: It is a community, it is the sum of knowledge, it brings inconvenient facts to light, and it is the embodiment of empowering the individual. Like a town, it has history. Like a constitution, it provides limits on the power of governments. It affects people's lives. You presume to know the extent of my activism in other areas. You presume to know the extent of my personal experience of tragedy and loss. How many more of the people I care about have to die and get raped by their bosses and commit suicide and suffer addiction and deal with discrimination and fight mental illness for me to have your permission to care deeply about Wikipedia? I cannot solve Vietnam or Iraq, but I can lend my expertise to a platform and a movement that shares truths that the powerful find inconvenient. Do you have a better way to stop a war? UninvitedCompany 15:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@UninvitedCompany:, you make very good points. All of them except I am not presuming to know your personal experiences. I did presume to see a lot of passion in your initial comment, which to me is the most important aspect of this and most other matters of importance. MLK displayed passion, all of us have it inside us. I think its cool that you feel and display passion on behalf of Wikipedia, I just disagree with the level of importance you placed upon your efforts ending up being, in your mind, fruitless.
As I stated, wars are a much more damaging waste of time and cause much more profound damage to both humanity and nature itself. I don't think that is really debatable, so I am saying that whatever passion you have for Wikipedia could be multiplied exponentially towards, as you signed your comment "Peace". You may want to watch the 60 minutes episode I linked above because that 99 year old man is very passionate and devoted to the cause of peace.
Regarding your question, its not rocket science to stop wars anymore than it was rocket science to stop slavery. Wars are being sanctioned by governments just as slavery once was. All that's needed is for voters to take away the authority of their governments to wage any war other than to stop a direct invasion.
I think that's the way Switzerland does it, but whatever way they do it, that could be a template to start from. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Contributing on Wikipedia is Wastage of Time

This is very unfortunate that experienced editors on Wikipedia discourage new users. I still didn't understand what was promotion in Gandhi Mandela Award article. And how can you decide that i am a paid user. Do you think that Government will pay me for creating an incomplete Wiki page? That was my own interest to create an article for my nation. Now it seems like contributing on Wikipedia is only the wastage of time. Lastin4 (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

By the look of things you need to beef up sourcing, if it is notable there will be plenty of 3rd party reliable sources. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@Lastin4: I recommend looking at WP:NORG to see how you can make your organization reliable. Always keep this in mind, just because you think it's significant does not mean others will see it as significant at all. You need to prove to others that it is reliable. WP:NORG will help you with that. I tried creating an article that I thought it was significant, but others thought it wasn't and declined my draft. However, after finding more sources that proves its significance, I finally was able to publish the draft and it's now in Wikipedia. INeedSupport It has gone downhill 18:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
We do engage in a lot of "wastage of time," to be sure, but we feel the project is important. Carrite (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Seems like an obvious Merge / Redirect to the parent organization. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Good admins are the heart of this project; and we're hemorrhaging

If you've lost Beeblebrox and Floquenbeam, that alone should tell you that something is deeply wrong. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Heart of the community is our editors. ..Wikipedia currently has (123,503 active editors that have edited in the last 30 days), and only very very small minority of those contributors participate in community discussions and have no clue that a few dozen administrators are not here.--Moxy 🍁 01:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
They would have an idea that someone wasn't here if the active vandals aren't blocked. (Note: I am not advocating that Admins fail to act, as a protest.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
This would be why many decade editors think unbundling tools and allocating some of them to oldtimers would help. Community wouldn't be interrupted by a power struggle by those we entrusted to keep things going.--Moxy 🍁 02:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Or to put it another way, Orangemike, if you've lost as many admins in two weeks as you've managed to get in the past two years, something is deeply wrong... Yintan  21:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

More suggestions for greater WMF/Community harmony

Now that there are several hundred WikiMedia projects and official spin-offs, the WMF tends to forget that the en.Wiki is nevertheless very much the flagship project and that without it, the WMF's raison d'être ceases to exist. The Executive Director may therefore wish to rekindle something like Sue Gardner's initiative where from 2009 to 2015 (or thereabouts) she sat in on WMF 'Office Hours', a weekly IRC in which she she engaged with the community. I never took part but only because I can't abide any kind of online chat rooms due mainly to the trolling that goes on there - even on the informal 'Office Hours' (the chats were logged).

The point I wish to make however, is that while enjoying her high flying executive lifestyle on the funds our unpaid work provides, it would be good if she were to take a genuine interest in what goes on at ground level rather than just assume that her colleagues are dong a good job and that we volunteer minions in the WikiMedia owned communities are doing ours.

By the same token, there should be some mechanism whereby our Executive Directors are constantly answerable to the Board of Trustees, also preferably in the form of a weekly audience with them. Even a Prime Minister of the UK, despite his or her heavy schedule, has to answer to Parliament in Question Time once a week, and attend a weekly private meeting (no minutes taken) with the Queen.

These are initiatives that the ED could call for herself without being pressured into them by us. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

There is a fundamental difference between PMQs, in which a prime minister is confronted by a hostile opposition, and anything that would be allowed on Wikipedia, where all heretical dissenting voices have to be silenced. Wikipedia is culturally more suited to the Spanish Inquisition. Eric Corbett 19:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
lol! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Sitting in my comfy chair, I have to say that I did expect this particular inquisition. The WMF has demonstrated incompetence on a number of occasions, and are still doing so now. While I understand and appreciate the willingness of people to wait for the Board of Trustees to issue a statement and get it right, the lack of movement is frankly absurd. I've noted this elsewhere; can you imagine the savaging that United Airlines would have endured if they had made no official statement for three weeks after the United Express Flight 3411 incident? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I initially believed this whole affair was just a monumental office cock-up - the sort of thing that happens when a new intern decides to show initiative without running it past his superiors first. However, I am now coming to the conclusion it was a deliberate and planned power grab and display of strength. The writing is on the wall for Wikipedia, it’s now going to be run as a business by the WMF, becoming far more commercialised and with no management input from the editorship at all. Some people will have huge salaries and bonuses. This has been a coup d'état, and its going to soon become obvious that we individually have a choice of going or staying, and, quite frankly, it will make little difference to the content and future huge profitability of Wikipedia which we decide to do because new more accepting people will always come along to do the writing and the chores in return for a pat on the head or $100 prize money. A few scraps will shortly be thrown our way, but that’s the bleak picture I’m afraid. Giano (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I sincerely hope you’re right, but for how many more weeks should they be given the benefit of doubt? Giano (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I suggest none. This endemic kicking into the long grass is way beyond absurd. Eric Corbett 21:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I think it's a combination of the two things. They wanted to expand their power to moderate enwiki (for what they probably saw as very good and necessary reasons), without realizing just how dramatic of a power-grab it would look like from enwiki's perspective. In addition, they'd previously changed a number of policies that led to this without many people noticing and therefore with little backlash; from their perspective this was just them using powers they thought they'd already uncontroversially assigned themselves (hence Jan's plaintive insistence that T&S decisions cannot be appealed - something he doubtless considered to be a settled matter and beyond question - not realizing how unworkable that position was when discussing conduct bans and without realizing he was throwing oil in the fire every time he tried to assert it.) I think another factor is that they underestimated the scale of enwiki in several respects - in terms of its culture, in terms of the problems they were trying to address, in terms of how sustained its pushback could be if it felt its independence was threatened and so on. They went for the sort of "screw it, we're in charge and we'll just ban the bad people" solution you'd use if you were running a small forum in the late 90's, rather than something that could work for the fifth largest website in the world. --Aquillion (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd say that's a pretty good summary.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Wait, WMF actually does think they're in charge? Is this likely to be reparable, or are we doomed? --Yair rand (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
And if so, then my first instinct was to say "and that's a tragedy" - but no, the mass of the work of the encyclopedia is flowing along, even with much-felt absences. What it is a wake-up call, received and answered, and a learning opportunity. I really, really look forward to the coming statement, resolution, some reworking of the support organisation, and an improved way forward. There are many years and articles in this project and community yet...SeoR (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Upcoming

'News flash / Update' : I believe we now have final signoff and we are just waiting for Christophe to post it. I'll comment further after that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The Board met yesterday to work on a full statement about this. It's not easy getting to consensus with a large group, but overall I think people are going to be happy with the statement and with the things we are asking the WMF staff to do going forward. As one board member wasn't present, we decided to give a bit more time so that we can get to unanimity.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

That's nice to hear:-) ∯WBGconverse 11:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Jimbo, thank you for your efforts. We have a 4th ArbCom case request now on this matter. I'm sure you and Doc James know the enormity of the situation. Maybe Pundit also, I've seen them here and there. I hope your fellow board members are also aware of how the community is on fire. starship.paint (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. We've made it abundantly clear. I ask everyone who sees fire to try to soothe people. This is going to go the right way. My own personal view is that drama never helps, but making it clear (through strikes/retirements) that something is unacceptable is a totally respectable and useful way to move the needle in an important way. "There's a giant flame war on the Internet" never really makes a dent. "Our best administrators are writing essays about why this is wrong, and many of them have indicated they will quit" makes a big dent. Also: "The good people protesting are not, for the most part, defending bad behavior. They are asking the WMF to consider how this action undermines our efforts to improve behavior" is helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Jimbo - I am asking this because I'm sure lots of other people are thinking it - is there any way you'd be able to put some sort of ball-park estimate to the 'a bit more time' part of your statement - are we talking a few hours, a few days, or a few weeks even? I'm sure you can't be specific, but giving people a rough idea would help, as I think that a lot of us were hoping for some sort of concrete statement today. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 12:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Jimbo, a few people have made the suggestion that you personally should reach out to each of the people who have resigned to establish dialogue with them about this crisis. Based on those one-on-one discussions, and in concert with an appropriate response, you could then encourage them to return. Resignation list is available, as is the retirements list. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you again, Jimbo. starship.paint (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I think it's uplifting that in the midst of this mega-hullaballoo, there's people who thinks, "Yeah, I should do a Wikipedia:Requests for adminship". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
There are lots of us who are "on strike" but have not formally retired so are not on that retirements list. As I posted on the main "Community response" page, I have not edited in article space since the day WMF blocked Fram and I don't plan to until the fiasco is satisfactorily resolved and three other editors immediately replied that they haven't either and won't either. Who knows how many others there are. And all this out of a supposed desire to attract and keep more editors. Lose, lose, lose.Smeat75 (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Please hurry up. Things are still very tense and threatening to spiral out of control every few hours. The train should leave the station already, whether or not everyone is on board. Jehochman Talk 13:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Yeah, ↑ this. --Xover (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Depends on the timeline I feel. Waiting an extra day for unanimity is probably good. Waiting 3 weeks, not so much. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
        • I agree with this completely.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Just to note… We're now in that awkward period between "probably good" and "not so much". The number of units of time that it is responsible to wait for unanimity is measured in hours not days. One can reasonably disagree, I feel, on the precise number, but not the units of measure.
          There are proxy fights and fallout from this all over the project—three separate case requests at ArbCom, two of which are secondary to the main events—and every one of them creates fractures in the community that are unlikely to ever heal. Shedding admins and bureaucrats (approx. 10% of the actives now, I think) is bad enough, but longer term, the antipathy between members of the community generated by this situation will be the cause of future conflicts that will lose us even more.
          Please hurry! --Xover (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Cool; politicians are always misquoting Voltaire with "Don't Let The Perfect Be The Enemy Of The Good", and we all know how crappy the finished work of politicians are. So, no problem, get it right. Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I hope the controversy will end soon. The incident has made me viewed the WMF differently, but hopefully this time things will be better. Good luck with the consensus! INeedSupport It has gone downhill 19:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • While I am definitely hoping that the announcement will be as good as promised, I'm withholding any praise or criticism until the statement is released. -- llywrch (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Wow, it's getting late here. I guess the announcement will come soon, because if not, it'll become TOMORROW and that will be disappointing. And yes I know how timezones work. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • In so far as how this crisis has progressed, it was tomorrow >2 weeks ago. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • You’re painting yourself into a corner. The longer you wait the more people expect. This sets them up for disappointment. Jehochman Talk 11:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, facts are facts. I can't rush the process. I thought we would have something out a few hours from now - at the moment I am less sure but this isn't about TOMORROW it's about the details and getting everyone on board!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
There are a lot of people "on board" here now. But come tomorrow, if there's still nothing, I think they'll probably be jumping off. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
[Jehochman removed melodramatic comment. Not worth arguing with somebody on the Internet.]
Don't be so melodramatic, it only hurts the cause. PackMecEng (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, since I feel that dramatic is one of the apt descriptions of the current situation, let me quote a comment, since removed, that I think communicated the sense of urgency I feel aptly: Please understand exactly what's at stake. We had an incident two days ago that threatened to create yet another ArbCom case and huge community disruption. We defused it, just barely. Yesterday there was the Signpost incident which went to ArbCom, where it has been contained, but with lots of damage. Editors who've worked together for years are getting into fights, and several will probably retire as a result. This is tearing the community apart. Every hour inflicts further costs. Please consider these costs in your calculus. This is not the time for people holding out to try to get more of whatever they want. Come together and move ahead.
Feel free to rag on me for feeling that way and wanting Jimbo to know it. --Xover (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Jimbo, you've had three weeks for "getting everyone onboard!". The community has been incredibly patient with you and the WMF. You can see the scale of the damage that has been done. Now it's out in the mainstream press, contributions to WMF will doubtless be hit. To sum up, get on with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I had expected the statement to be out by now but there were some last minute edits that are being discussed. I'm pushing hard. If something can't be agreed by the entire board in the next 12-16 hours, at least I will make my own public statement on the matter and give my own personal advice to the community about next steps. Three weeks, as you say, is long enough. My past statements will give you an idea of what I will have to say about this, but it will be time to be considerably less diplomatic.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that Jimbo - both for giving the ballpark expected timeframe, and for reiterating your own frustration with how long this is taking. I hope that the board's statement will be released within your expected timeframe; if not, I look forward to reading your views and recommendations. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 21:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your efforts. After you finish trying to corral board members to get to unanimity on a statement about this three week old crisis, you may want to consider asking your fellow board members to mandate the hiring of an experienced communication professional. The various communications from Katherine, Jan, Qgil, and board members broadcasts that the WMF is doesn't have a unanimity of purpose, let alone a unanimity on a statement. By the way, when a WMF spokesperson says that a statement will come "tomorrow", and then tomorrow comes and there is no statement or explanation, people no longer trust what that spokesperson says. That lack of trust tends to accrue to the organization itself.- MrX 🖋 13:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • It's always good to plan to provide something tomorrow, rather than to promise, because when you fail, the realization that the plan wasn't a good one can provide a "learning and development" opportunity. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Who knows the statement might be released this century.... At this rate we're all going to die of old age before a statement is even released..... –Davey2010Talk 14:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
We really need the leadership to step forward, and that means the ED, the Chair, and yourself, and, sorry to be direct, but we need it now, from at least one of you, as well as the collective Board. Perspective like User_talk:Katherine_(WMF)#No more delays sums it up; the fact is that too much time has passed. People actually did wait, but weeks are too long, and now we are losing scarce talent, and skills that took years to 1.5 decades to build. And I endorse the above comment re. the need for professional communication support - but with a caveat. What WMF and the communities don't need is "PR cover" - it's good to see people out here "for real" - but mass messaging could be better handled, to keep the fires banked better. All this said, and as a first time visitor here, thanks for the vision and the projects, they've added to my life, and those of many others I know. All the more reason to get things back on track quickly, restore community as the centre of everything, and reset "scope creep" of what was always meant to be a *support* organisation. Best,SeoR (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

News "flash"

Jimbo, you posted that a few hours ago, what is being posted, where and when? This is becoming truly tiresome. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

There’s a good soccer game. 7 minutes of extra time remain. Jehochman Talk 20:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, although I fear the result won't be so good... ! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I give the WMF 12 more hours to fix this mess or I'm out. Of course I'm fully aware my deadline won't make any difference to them but I don't want to give my time and energy to an organisation that has proved to be utterly inadequate in dealing with its volunteers. This has been going on for three weeks now. Three weeks of eloquent CorporateSpeak, skillfully avoiding the main issue, and one shitty tweet to boot. It's a disgrace. Yintan  21:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, gross negligence followed by utter incompetence. All being paid for by virtue of this community's voluntary efforts to enrich the world, yet be treated like shit when it suits WMF. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The board statement has been posted here. Stephen 00:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I've read it and posted my views there. Long story short: it's far from good enough, sorry. Yintan  06:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

News you can use

Wikipedia’s “Constitutional Crisis” Pits Community Against Foundation- MrX 🖋 16:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Ain't this just the pits. But no wing walk for Jan Eissfeldt, it seems Martinevans123 (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
This Slate article is actually a great advertisement, imo, with some funny lines like: "As of Tuesday morning, at least 21 Wikipedia administrators and one bot have resigned in protest against the ban." It shows Wikipedia to be an interesting and fun place to be, full of drama, controversy and passion. The author's own analysis is sophomoric and shallow, but overall, I think we could get a lot more good editors joining up. Turning lemons into lemonade so to speak. That is also a helluva great and comprehensive Signpost report Smallbones. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Apologies for the habitual facetiouness. I think it's a fair article. But as for "a great advertisement", I think it's about as attractive as these. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Jimmy, having read and digested (and slept on) the board's statement, and having read your follow-up comments, I want to thank you and the board for the efforts you have made and for the results. There's a lot of early negativity, but I hope that's simply because of the slight vagueness of parts of the write-by-committee statement, and I think you have clarified any ambiguity nicely. In a way, I'm sorry we never got to see your potentially "much more pointed statement", but I guess it's a better result that we didn't need to :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Second that. And also that it’s probably better not to have had to see Super Powers deployed. Now, while leaving Katherine and her team to act as asked - with, importantly in my life experience, of non-profits even more than corporates, a deadline or set of timed checkpoints - could you, Jimbo, reach out to some of the lost or disenchanted advanced users. I agree with a note elsewhere that simple Editor is the core job, but we do need Admins, Bureaucrats, CUs and so on too, and already did not have enough. I think such an outreach is perfect for the Old Peculiar role of Founder!SeoR (talk) 10:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. The Old Peculiar Role, I like that expression. I saw somewhere that there was a resignation list, can you remind me where I saw that?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jimbo Wales: all of last month's admin changes are in the Administrators' newsletter, there is also a running list at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/List of Fram related strikes. — xaosflux Talk 13:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales, That would be at WP:FRAMSUM#Resignations. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 13:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@Bellezzasolo: thanks, the annotated bibliography feel to that one helps call out the quotes well. — xaosflux Talk 13:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
As a recently resigned admin (like Boing above) I want to echo his thanks. The statement from the board was a pleasant surprise, and while questions remain, the statement was, in my view, a big step in the right direction. It directly addressed some of concerns I and others have had about this from the beginning, and I appreciate the work you've done on this. I look forward to seeing how this develops and I hope it is a significant milestone on the path towards our community and the foundation working together as partners rather than combatants. 28bytes (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Reading

3 July
Franz Kafka: Das Schloss
... about about alienation,
  • unresponsive bureaucracy,
  • the frustration of
  • trying to conduct business
  • with non-transparent,
  • seemingly arbitrary
  • controlling systems ...

Who will write the best short story Kafka style about the incident and its consequences, unresponsive bureaucracy and non-transparent, seemingly arbitrary controlling systems, in short, about frustration? Better: end the frustration? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Proud co-author of the Kafka article, I started a similar thread on several pages, and you could go by the image links to find out more. Two interesting discussions developed, one suggesting a simple solution and touching Gestapo, on User talk:Beetstra (see also below), the other on User talk:Iridescent focused on the term "toxic behaviour" which has been used in the Board statement. I think it's a vague term that we better avoid altogether instead of basing actions on it. What is toxic behaviour? What is perceived as toxic behaviour, and by whom? (The term is better than the earlier used "incredibly toxic personalities", though.) In the discussion, I remembered the 2014 Wikimania speech aiming at more "kindness, generosity, forgiveness and compassion". In the name of that, and for more transparency, Fram should be unbanned (best by those who banned him), and the normal community procedures of conflict resolution could take place. Repeating from both discussions: I had my conflicts with Fram but he was more often right than I was, and always factual. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Katherine

On her user talk page Katherine has posted a statement. I haven't read it yet, I'm just posting it here as I assume people will want to read it!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

This statement (and I invite everyone to read it) leaves me much more hopeful than the WMF-statement...thank you. Lectonar (talk) 08:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I do find at least glimmers of hope in her statement, as opposed to the tone deaf and absolutely unacceptable WMF statement, which basically does nothing to resolve the main question of separation of powers. By the way, there are two more administrators who have resigned tools, Dirk Beetstra and Voice of Clam. See: Bureaucrats' noticeboard. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I don’t see any glimmer of hope. I see an empty justification for presiding of a kangaroo court and no justification at all for naive and puerile tweets. The only thing I read there is a plea not to be fired. Ms Maher has proven that she is not up to the job. It would be better and less painful for all if she resigned with some vestige of honour, before she is pushed, which without a shadow of doubt will happen at some time in the future. Giano (talk) 08:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Retirement notice from Curly Turkey

Mr Wales,

You're probably not familiar with my name, but I'm a long-term editor: 100,000 edits, 24 FAs, 33 GAs, 248 new articles. That's by way of introduction, not to toot my horn.

I'm retiring from Wikipedia today—both as an editor and reader—over grave concerns I have with the handling of the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics case and its total disregard for WP:CCPOL (and a mountain of other issues I won't bother you with).

I opened the case over persistent POV-pushing and stonewalling bahaviour at the SNC-Lavalin affair article. This is a sensitive Canadian politics article, and the editing appears to be pushing to influence the upcoming federal election in October. An example is editwarring to highlight a fringe dogwhistle term in the lead—this was shot down in an RfC that closed "no consenses" against the majority.[5]

Though the ArbCom case was opened to examine this months-long behaviour that had ground progress on the article to a halt, the Arbs did not examine any of it—it's not that they rejected it, but that they failed even to acknowledge any of it, and refused to respond to queries about not doing so.

The most convenient way for the Arbs to end the conflict was to shut me up, while leaving the root problem undiagnosed and untreated, so it can fester and grow.

The WP:CIVILPOV essay was written way back in 2007, and it appears no progress has been made to deal with these problems. The Arbs fairly consistently play right into the hands of the Civil POV-pushers: restricting exasperated editors from articles, thus giving free reign to the POV pushers. That's what's happened at SNC-Lavalin affair—I've been ABANned until after the election, and the first item on the POV-pushers' agenda is to relitigate the RfC I mention above to reinstate the fringe dogwhistle term.

After the number of years these issues have continued without serious attempt to take action, I don't expect the community, you, the WMF, or anybody to actually do anything. I've known of these kinds of issues for a long time, but I never took them to heart as, I suppose, it didn't obviously affect the areas I normally edit (which tend to be boringly uncontroversial). The situation reinforces itelf as the POV-pushers' representation in the community increases, and those who would check their abuses leave or are forced out.

The project is not what I thought it was. It undermines its own stated values. A community so easily gamed has left me feeling helpless and hopeless.

So long, and thanks for all the fish. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Very sorry to see that CT. I agree that WP:Civil POV pushing is Wikipedia's greatest danger and it is one reason that I am reluctant to join "let's be nice" campaigns because they seldom acknowledge that outbursts are usually for a reason, and a sanction against the person who loses their cool might simply reward POV pushers. Johnuniq (talk) 05:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom drives another pillar of the community off in order to make the project safer for a POV-pushing SPA. Great work. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
CurlyTurkey, I am sad to see this. You should have consulted the ultimate guide to arbitration, and I missed telling you, sorry. It clearly says as a nutshell: "Arbitrators usually work from broad impressions and do not consider details, nuance, or context.", then more detailed: "If you have anything important to say make sure to say it at the start – the Request for Arbitration, which is the only page that most arbitrators can be relied upon to read. Here you have a chance to make one clear and concise point, with just enough diffs to show that you've done your homework. Do not make nuanced arguments that require careful reading or critical thought." I found that true when I was subjected to arbitration, but read the guide only afterwards. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Wow. I could have used that advice too. Then maybe Arbcom wouldn't have chased me away by accusing me of 'unprofessional behaviour' for editing Wikipedia in my spare time. Hans Adler 09:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Agree fully with Gerda, but I would go further to say that this is a major problem with ArbCom (and the encyclopedia that relies on them as the highest court of appeal for inter-editor conflicts), since it means, essentially, that context and content do not matter at all. In the long run something is going to need to be done: this is a bigger, much more serious issue than any of the current FRAMBAN stuff, and has been going on for years. What's really weird is that, in the one case I can recall where they did look at both context and content (the Wikicology case) they only seem to have done so because community consensus was already unanimous (read: it wasn't really in ArbCom's purview to begin with). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

A statement at ARC

Any chance you could formulate a statement at WMF and Fram to clarify the points you've made elsewhere, since those are key issues there? --Xover (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I will have to think about it, but I'm pretty sure it is neither necessary for useful to have the WMF as a party to a case. It strikes me as unnecessary if the purpose of the case is to determine what sanctions or not should be placed on Fram for his problematic behavior, given the full context of matters. For the ArbCom to reduce, eliminate, confirm, or extend the block is one thing - to suggest that they can or should place sanctions on WMF staff members is, well, let's just say that raises a whole new world of constitutional questions that are best addressed in a big picture facilitated community consultation about things going forward.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh. I'm sorry, I wasn't clear on what I meant. The early statements on the case request were based on the Board's statement and were uncertain about whether ArbCom had actually been handed jurisdiction over the case, or if the statement merely meant T&S would let them give advice and then do what they wanted. I feel that a statement there making the same clarification you did here, here, here would help avoid that distraction.
And I agree that having the WMF as a party is a bad idea: the only sensible scope is Farm's behaviour. Anything more would only complicate matters. If there are other matters that need to be addressed by ArbCom that would best be handled in separate cases; and the governance issues are a wider community issue that doesn't belong in an ArbCom case. --Xover (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Problematic behaviour? Pre-judging much Jimbo? Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not judging at all, much less pre-judging. At the same time, quoting Fram, "I'm not a model admin or editor" I don't think it controversial at all to say that his behavior has been problematic.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I think a lot of people have formed opinions about Fram's behaviour. I have too, but I don't share it because it isn't particularly well founded. Heck, even Fram has admitted that there have been problem's with their behaviour. The question has always been how problematic and what manner of response is merited, and, of course, whose bailiwick it is to deal with it. --Xover (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Precisely.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Reach out to the collateral damage resignations. Argue the case that the proper safeguards will be erected and the reason they resigned for is no longer actively a threat. You can do so much to heal. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I don’t know where this false narrative came from. There is no contemplation of sanctioning WMF staff. The idea behind naming them as parties is for notification purposes and because they have an interest in following the case. Nothing more. Jehochman Talk 16:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)←
    • That's not what a "party to a dispute" is. —Cryptic 16:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Are you a lawyer? I ask because I don’t want to insult you. My understanding as a non lawyer who went to law school and took Covil Procedure is that a party is anybody who has an interest in a dispute. WMF asserted their interest in this dispute when they involved themselves. Jehochman Talk 16:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Meh. It's an easy mistake to make. The case request is titled "WMF and Fram", the two WMF accounts are named as parties, and the previous WJBScribe case request both named WMFOffice as a party and proposed it be sanctioned. It's not that important; it's been clarified. --Xover (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
It sounds like we are all in agreement. My comment was only meant to clarify, and it sounds like that's been clarified now.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • What do you think about my thesis that it is best to receive a case request from the community, with comments from the community about how the case should be framed and how evidence should be presented? My thinking is that people like to follow established rituals, and that trust is generated by giving people a chance to participate in decisions important to them. I don't think it will be healthy for ArbCom to meet with T&S and then announce what kind of case they are going to have. It should be a bottom up process, instead. Jehochman Talk 18:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't know of any reasonable process whereby that can happen in a reasonable period of time. I think ArbCom should look at the Fram situation, on the basis of their elected and traditional authority, and make things as right as they can there. And I think everyone - me, you, the WMF, random people in the community, should respect that and support it even if we have minor quibbles about this and that - this isn't the time to have fights over minor quibbles.
In terms of the real longterm issue, I agree with you completely. I'd like to see a combination of bottom-up proposals, WMF assistance in facilitating and encouraging real work by people in the community (including flying relevant key players for face-to-face workshopping of ideas) to find ways to improve. We have a problem, widely perceived, that some types of longterm incivility aren't being resolved appropriately. We have a very strong view, widely held, that the WMF swooping in to smite people without possibility of appeal and so on, isn't the solution. So we have to roll up our sleeves and get to work: we believe in community, we know we have great people here, we know we have a nearly universal desire to improve the environment, and we have a nearly universal desire to solve it in the community. That's something I'm optimistic about, despite all the noise!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Agree. I think we need to develop a standard structure for issuing sanctions and a standard criteria for determining what is harassment, and a standard set of safe-harbor provisions defining what administrative and editorial behavior is not harassment. There can be exceptions, of course, but there should be defaults that work for most cases. As an example, look at this AN thread where a user has been blocked more than a dozen times for disruption, gone through three accounts and multiple socking incidents over 12 years, yet they are still here generating long threads on AN/I! Then we have Fram who's first sanction was a one year ban. I can understand why people are resigning because it looks like we practice selective enforcement. Jehochman Talk 18:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
We have a very strong view, widely held, that the WMF swooping in to smite people without possibility of appeal and so on, isn't the solution. Thank you. That is exactly what has been alienating me since it happened. Glad you are in agreement and thanks for listening to us.Smeat75 (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Jimbo, you may think this is a "minor quibble" but I have a bit of a concern over this part of Katherine's statement: " in response to ArbCom’s open letter to the Board which set out its preparedness to review the User:Fram ban, the Foundation has completed its preparation of the case materials it can release to the committee."

Arbcom, so far as I am aware, are trusted to see all en.wp related confidential material, and would need to do so to arrive at a fair conclusion. What concerns me is that if the "case materials [which can] be release[d] to the committee" are something along the lines of: "well, he did these half a dozen pretty naughty things, which we can give you full details of, but there are also these other 'x' number of terrible things he allegedly did which we can't give you any details of, but trust us they were dreadful", then that puts arbcom in a pretty awful position. They then have to either say "ok, we can only act based on the things you've given full details of", which pisses off T&S, and may not be fair if the secret things are real, or they can say "ok, we believe you" and act on revealed and unrevealed things. They then also have to decide how much of this "horse-trading" they can reveal to the community, and that decision may or may not incur various amounts of righteous community dissatisfaction, or suspicion.

Maybe I'm over-thinking it, but it still seems as though this process could be messy and unsatisfactory. I hope I'm wrong and a good path can be found, but it'd be difficult for me to say I'm convinced that can happen yet. -- Begoon 19:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Any assertion connected to a "trust us" should be discounted to zero value. If they have something really horrible, global lock and say so. If they don't, give ArbCom what ArbCom can see, and let them decide on that basis. They can only do what's possible, not what's perfect. Jehochman Talk 19:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't disagree with the value you suggest attaching to intangibles. I still have a concern about "grey areas" because if there are none, and a full and complete sharing of information is the intent, it seems odd to need to "prepar[e] the case materials it can release to the committee", rather than "prepar[e] all of the case materials it can [for] release to the committee". Yes, it's an imperfect situation - but I'm hoping for maximum trust (in sharing) between the two bodies, not 'selective' trust -- Begoon 19:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

WMF should be a party in the case. Even if ARBCOM cannot sanction, they can certainly make recommendations to WMF. I've said as much in my statement at ARC. Mjroots (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Something inspirational

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GA5AtPl5EY Apologies if you are not a fan. (edit, it is a key scene from a Peter Jackson epic) -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Welcome![6] EllenCT (talk) 10:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Fram & ArbCom

You made the statement (several times) that ArbCom has the full authority to overturn Fram's ban, and that the WMF has to help in providing as much information as they can. I think that that is a very important step forward, and I thank you for that clarification.

However, it is unlikely that ArbCom will do any investigation, or can do any investigation, when they are not presented sufficient information. That could possibly result in an impasse where WMF cannot present enough information to ArbCom and hence they do not have enough information to have a case. That would make even that promise of you an empty shell. Would you mind to share your thoughts on such a scenario. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure. I can't speak for anyone in particular and I can't violate any confidences, but I can say a few words about this that I think will be helpful. I sat in on a call yesterday evening (UK time) with ArbCom and T&S, and T&S will be sharing a very large file of what sounds like basically everything with, as I understand it, certain names redacted. The ArbCom members on the call seemed happy to hear that, but of course hadn't seen the file yet. I am happy to say, therefore, assuming good faith all around, that ArbCom will have the information they need to come to a fully independent judgment.
I also think that everyone - including strong partisans on the anti-Fram and pro-Fram sides of things - should personally prepare to support the ArbCom decision as this is the elected traditional body of the community and they need the will of the community behind them.
The alternative, I fear, is anarchy and/or WMF top-down control. (This is an empirical observation of things in the abstract, and obviously oversimplified, and not something that I think is in any way good.)
We need to get better at dealing with toxic behavior on the site. Our best hope is ArbCom in this case, and a big community consultation to figure out how we are failing and how we can build institutions inside the community that are fair and just - and firm against personal attacks of all kinds.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I think dealing with the toxic behaviour of the 'Trust & Safety' Committee before it can completely replace Wikipedia's established structures and turn into a Committee of Public Safety is a very good start. There is a real problem, but this doesn't help. I am glad there is a good solution in sight. Hans Adler 11:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
That sounds good to me, and ArbCom will get my support whatever their decision. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thank you. You are basically reassuring me that such a scenario is extremely unlikely. I am looking forward to the proceedings of the case. I hope that we will get regular updates from ArbCom (even if most of the material stays private), and that Fram gets a proper chance to defend their case. That should lead to a positive outcome to this situation, and then I will support their decision. I however don't think that for most people this is a case of pro-Fram/anti-Fram, it certainly is not for me.
There is no 'or' there. A WMF top-down control will go together with anarchy (seen that none of the editors on strike/that resigned have reverted that decision yet, this can still slide into anarchy if this situation lingers). I have no doubt that a top-down approach by WMF will never be accepted by this community.
I agree that we have to get better at dealing with 'toxic behaviour' on this site. But that needs a bottom-up approach, and that is where the WMF should have helped (and that has been requested), not the top-down approach that WMF currently seems to have adopted.
I look forward to resume editing, requesting my bit back, turning the bot back on, and continue the bottom-up approach to maintaining Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

New WikiProject award has your face

WikiDollar
This is the new award of WikiProject Numismatics. It's modeled after a US coin and, naturally, features your face. - ZLEA T\C 21:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I think it needs colour and a bit of 3D perspective. Dr. K. 23:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, isn't it customary to feature the profile of a person in a coin? Dr. K. 23:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Dr.K. It is usually customary for a coin to feature a person on the obverse (heads side), but coins have recently been made with other head positions (such as the Jefferson nickel of 2005-present). I'm not an expert with Photoshop and don't know how to make a 3D perspective (the 3D rim was made using the shape feature on Microsoft Word). As for color, there is a gold WikiDollar. - ZLEA T\C 02:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. The gold dollar looks good. I would prefer if Jimbo's picture had a bit more of an angle as in this coin, but this is just a small quibble on my part. Dr. K. 02:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

We need more arbitrators, and they need to be paid

After wading through Framgate I think what I can contribute is of the need for more people with the "Old Peculiar Role". ;)

I control 2 wikis outside Wikimedia. They deal with international organizing. It is a combination of some centralized activity, and mostly decentralized activity. Kind of like English Wikipedia. I am just one of many with the "Old Peculiar Role" of you, Jimbo. There are many regional organizing people and lists who the community respects. They are the heart and soul.

I have learned the hard way that it is important to continually encourage others to take on more responsibility. I get asked for help often. I tell them to go to the many relevant local, regional, and national Facebook groups worldwide, and ask around for help and advice. It almost always works.

ArbCom is the core of Wikimedia. It is Facebook before there was Facebook. Just like with Facebook people come and go. Tyrants are abandoned since anybody can create another local or regional Facebook group for the organizing we do.

The WMF is not Wikipedia. Arbcom is. But it sounds like they are overwhelmed. We need more arbitrators. And paying them would help a lot. They would do more much-needed work. And that means less work for us with the "Old Peculiar Role". -- Timeshifter (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

If WP:FRAMBAN has taught us anything, it's that ArbCom needs to be independent from WMF which is incompatible with being paid. Paying ArbCom members would immediately lead a significant number of editors to believe that they are not independent from WMF and most likely completely wreck their credibility. Also, while their work is important and time consuming, so is the work many others do as well, e.g. someone investing hours to craft a perfect article. Regards SoWhy 12:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
The whole point of the community working for free is that it should give us power over the WMF who are our paid domestic servants. $307k salary is too much for a flunky - the position should be abandoned and the money put to better use. For example, it would pay for a further 150 scholarships to Wikimania, or a lot of travel costs for volunteers to regular WMF-Community meetings. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not, no. I agree with SoWhy and Kudpung here. The whole point of Arbs is that they are our independent elected representatives and they need to be free to support the community against WMF when necessary (as indeed they have done in their open letter to WMF). Being paid by WMF would create an insurmountable conflict of interest and would make trust by the community impossible. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, there are ways to deal with that financially, but that does not mean them being paid it is a good idea. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
There is always going to be a conflict somewhere, and I would rather it be the desire to get re-elected (into an unpaid position) than the desire to get paid. No matter who pays their salaries they will be pressured into favoring those people. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

At least two past arbitrators have taken paid jobs at WMF. There is a danger that the Arbs will try to please WMF so that they too can get these financial rewards. What WMF needs to understand is that we are the most important people in their world. Without of free effort and irreplaceable skills, they wouldn’t have their cushy jobs. Also, WMF ought to move as many jobs as they can out of San Francisco to some other nice place with a much lower cost of living. I recommend CT, but I’m biased. Jehochman Talk 13:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

  • I was having a conversation with a friend who was a paid forum administrator for America Online back in their heyday; he was interested in what was going on with WP in this crisis. I had to try to put the issue into AOL-comparable terms; that it was basically a struggle to maintain the "forum administrator's" autonomy and decision-making ability when being unilaterally overridden by the AOL home office, which was making irreversible decisions over the forum sysop's head. That is the nexus of the problem viewed from one side. (This is also my own perspective.)
On the other hand, there is another perspective in conflict with this view. It is a perception that there is no institutional fetter upon what might be tactfully called "officiousness" — the use of, for example, notability rules as a cudgel that has the effect of stomping out good-faith initiative of article creators working on things like "women in science," sourcing for which is on average apt to be less robust than for their older male colleagues. Fram is seen by them as particularly problematic in this regard, and they have no confidence that ArbCom represents a solution to the problem, so they have slowly built a new alternative way to smite their foes. Local autonomy to them is almost an undesirable thing, since they have full faith and confidence in WMF and co-mingle freely and frequently with WMF staff in person at WP events. This is the other side.
Moving forward, it seems that what is needed is a mechanism to rein in overzealous or bad-faith behavior in the article creation and article deletion processes. It's not really a matter of ArbCom needing to get serious about civility enforcement, I think the whole matter of naughty words and "civility" is a red herring or at best a proxy for perceptions of behavior at Articles for Deletion. Anyway, that's what I've learned today. Carrite (talk) 14:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Just throwing out ideas. In modern democracies, there are elected positions (usually legislators, but sometimes judges) which are paid positions, and these are not employed at the whims of the executive branch (Trump's wishes to the contrary!) and so the payment doesn't normally make them less independent - they still serve the electorate. I'm not advocating this, but I am suggesting that if there is a genuine problem of time commitment and expertise, and if payment would help with that, it doesn't have to be employment at the whim of the WMF. In the real world, my own view (which is not rare) there are more problems with judges being elected, than with them being paid. In our context, the elections have generally worked well - candidates overly involved in one side or another of various wiki-political disputes don't tend to do as well as people who have shown themselves to be thoughtful, deliberative, fair. A downside in my idea (I'm not proposing it, I'm just brainstorming) could very well be people seeking to be elected who aren't as qualified and dedicated but interested in the employment.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I really think there would be a big problem with trust from the community if we introduced paid admins arbs. Volunteers being represented by volunteers is a core part of the community culture, and splitting the community into a paid elite and unpaid workers would, I think, be disastrous. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Also, I don't think there really is a problem with commitment or expertise wrt ArbCom in general that needs solving with payment. Regards SoWhy 18:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I think it would be good to dedicate resources to help arbitrators and functionaries with training, travel to Wikimedia events and especially a robust legal defense for any claims relating to their work. That should probably be the limit of it. Jehochman Talk 19:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Yep, I think that could be a good move. But here's a thought... rather than sending them all to training under the Californian WMF cultural umbrella, offer Arbs training in their own countries that's totally independent of WMF and of US-specific cultural values? Perhaps that might help extend learning in both directions? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I remember noticing in Everipedia's ToS they farmed out arbitration to an external entity with experience in the matter. I do think the OP and JW are onto something. Who runs for the "hated" role of arbitrator? Presumably those who want to make a difference, those attracted to power, and possibly those who have other motivations that the AGF pill(ar) makes you forget as soon as you might have accidentally thought of them. Really, though, IMO ArbCom members should be paid and vetted by the WMF. However, that assumes that the press can do its duty...🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

OK. I can see there might be problems with paid arbitrators. But they should get all kinds of other help, no matter the cost. Our arbitrators overall are great. So the selection method is working well. But if we aren't going to pay them, then we need a heck of a lot more of them. Because there is so much work. There can be multiple teams of them. The beauty of ArbCom decision making is that it requires a majority vote of the team. So even if one ArbCom member is an idiot or a tyrant that day, it doesn't matter because majority voting forces some kind of compromise. And decisions can always be changed later by future team decisions. WMF does not have any of this. It is not accountable. And arbitrators are chosen for a specific period of time. They are not kings. -- Timeshifter (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

You do realize that ArbCom has been downsized in recent years because there was not as much to do anymore than in previous years? Regards SoWhy 07:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I think more stuff should go to them. Anything controversial such as banning people for anything less than direct threats. WMF staff could handle direct threats since that is urgent. I also think arbitrators should be involved in many of the decisions made by developers. Even if only to get their majority opinion. Developers seem out of touch at times. There are many decisions made by WMF staff (of all kinds) that seem out of touch with editors overall. There are intermediaries at Meta, etc, but they have their own cliques. Arbitrators are much more accountable. Their majority opinions are much more respected. -- Timeshifter (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
There was plenty to do, it just wasn't done. It got so bad that topic banned former admins were prosecuting new contributors with their sockpuppets and friends in ArbCom's name at AE, because this seemed to be what the "community of some" wanted. Mostly ArbCom has been rejecting cases, which is the problem T&S seems to want addressed. On the other hand, this term there seem to have been more cases requested and even accepted, though that's probably the tip of the iceberg given the neglect of recent years. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 09:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Alleged scammer posing as ″billionaire″ (has a Wikipedia page)

Hi Jimbo!

I want to share with you (and with people watching this page) what our regional news portals published in the past days.

It started with the meeting of our president (and other high officials) with the Vietnamese-German “billionaire” Mai Vũ Minh. They discussed possible investments, economic cooperation and so on, nothing unusual in that.

Then, some portals started to report that this person is not real billionaire, but some kind of a scammer, and they started to ridicule our leaders for meeting with him. There are dozens of news stories about that in the last two weeks, and I will select and link some of them below:

(Google translated to English)

So, according to media reports:

  • His SAPA Thale Group which is headquartered in the city of Thale (Germany) is not multi-billion dollar company, but an obscure GmbH which is worth only about €25.000.
  • Pictures of him with world leaders (Trump, Putin, Xi Jinping...) which can be found here are, for the most part, photoshopped in a way that interventions are obvious to amateurs.
  • Article about him on Vietnamese Wikipedia is full of inaccuracies, which can contribute to more people being tricked into believing that he is real billionaire, specially since his Wikipedia entry is the first result when someone Googles his name.

I don't know all the facts, since I don't speak German or Vietnamese, and I can't check the sources written in those languages. I will say that I found several articles about him on IBTimes (all written this year) that present him as influential investor (is it possible that he tricked them too?)

As for the article about him on Vietnamese Wikipedia - as I understood from the talk page, this person approached members of their community on their ″fan page″ and ask them for help in writing an article. The article states in the intro that Minh is ranked in the list of large and secretive investors in the world, influencing the global financial world and the governments of the countries.

I would appreciate assistance from users who speak German and/or Vietnamese in uncovering the background of this story. Thanks!--В и к и T 16:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I found the following official information about "SAPA Thale GmbH" (not: "SAPA Thale Group") [7]:
Registered January 2015. Original address: Parkstraße 1 in Thale. Activities registered: Letting and administration of real estate; operation of restaurants; organisation and execution of all kinds of events; organisation and exectution of all kinds of advertising; import and export of all kinds of goods; whole sale and retail; initial capital 25,000 Euros. Director: Mai, vu Minh, Ho Chi Minh City.
In March 2015 added second director: Nguyen, Dac Nghiep, Thale.
March 2017: Court announces intent to liquidate the company due to insolvency.
July 2017: New address Lindenbergsweg 11, Thale.
I found only very limited information in German about this man's stunts, and unfortunately not in strictly reliable sources. Hans Adler 22:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

A petition for you!

A MediaWiki:Editpage-head-copy-warn petition
I reserve the right to propose another RFC to, for example, petition the Board to allow Arbcom to see T&S's full evidence if they withhold it. EllenCT (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

But first see WP:FRAM#Editpage-head-copy-warn petition Doug Weller talk 18:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand why people got so angry at me. I blame the fact that online moderators often end up disgusted with humanity. EllenCT (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
How about instead of "secret", which sounds sinister, you use the word "private"? Liz Read! Talk! 01:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 Done EllenCT (talk) 01:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
But isn't it the "secret" part (geheim in German) which causes some of the protests?--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

What if I was standing up for myself as vigorously as I've been standing up for Fram?

Wikipedia:Banning policy#Appeal to Jimbo Wales says, "A topic banned editor cannot discuss the topic ban or topic on Jimbo's talk page, but is allowed to appeal the topic ban to Jimbo Wales, which is not entirely congruent with WP:BANEX, which I read for the first time today. I will prepare a full-throated appeal. EllenCT (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2019 (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.

A topic ban appeal petition
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.

Warrant canary

I saw some speculations that the Fram incident may have been caused by some type of legal issue, that cannot, for whatever reason be disclosed. I don't think that's true, but we may as well put it to bed. So, for the standard canary question: To the best of your knowledge, have you, the WMF, or a WMF employee or agent ever been served with a legal order you are unable to publicly disclose? Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, WMF regularly publishes a report about all of the requests they get to disclose user information, whether through court orders, from governments or NGOs. You can find this year's report at https://transparency.wikimedia.org/ . Liz Read! Talk! 04:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Liz, yes, I know of that. However, there are certain types of orders that can't be disclosed that way. The purpose of a warrant canary is to provide a warning if such an order has been issued, without violating the restriction against discussing it. Basically, anyone who hasn't received such an order would answer "no", while someone who has would answer "I can't discuss that" or doesn't answer at all. They're still not violating the restriction, but that would indicate that such an order exists and has been served. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I can go further. To my knowledge, there are no legal actions or threats, formal or informal, that have anything to do with this situation at all. To my knowledge, neither I, nor the WMF, nor a WMF employee or agent been served with a legal order that I am unable to disclose. I'm obviously not in the legal department of the WMF, and I don't necessarily hear about every little thing that happens, but to the best of my knowledge, this isn't a thing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
An injunction against WMF issued by a Berlin court on 14 December 2005 got off to a bad start when it was sent to St Petersburg, Russia instead of St Petersburg, Florida. The judgment in G & G v Wikimedia Foundation Inc draws attention to a very real risk:

(at paragraph 12): ... the naming of the respondent [Fram] may indirectly enable readers who already know other information about the case to identify of [sic] the claimant. ("jigsaw identification")

(at paragraph 40): There are occasions when the court does impose a prohibition upon disclosure of the fact that an order has been made.

For further reading I suggest zero knowledge proof. WMF has inadvertently disclosed several of the complainants by their statements and the messages they sent the respondent. It’s a real challenge to figure out how to maintain privacy yet give the respondent enough info to respond. Jehochman Talk 14:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Decisions taken in a closed mailing list

Just wanted to ask if it is common and/or acceptable practice here at en.wiki, for administrators to handle users’ unblock requests by discussing and resolving the issue in a closed mailing list. This mailing list is only for administrators and not all of them choose to subscribe, therefore, they are not involved in the decision-making process. It lacks transparency, there is no way for the community to know how many participated in the discussion, the arguments for or against, how many voted yes or no, consensus, etc. This is a common procedure at es.wiki and some members of the community are not in agreement and would prefer that these requests are discussed publicly at the Village Pump (Café, at es.wiki), for example. I’m aware that all the different wikis have their own policies, so I’m just asking for an opinion on this. Thanks for your reply, Maragm (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Which list are you referring to? Jehochman Talk 21:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm referring to a mailing list (email) that is only for admins at the Spanish wikipedia.--Maragm (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC) ps..the es.wiki community knows that this list exists because the admins, when they publish their decision in the blocked user's discussion page, they disclose this fact, that a "consensus" was reached among the admins who participated in the discussion and they have also mentioned this list in other pages. --Maragm (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC) pps... this is the page where the admins subscribe to this mailing list and, as I mentioned above, not all of them choose to do so. --Maragm (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
enwiki has had such a list for about 13 years,[8] and currently uses WP:UTRS which is probably similar to what you describe. It provides a useful venue for people who for whatever reason don't want to, or cannot, appeal on-wiki. It's probably over relied-upon, and lacks some transparency in some cases, but it can be useful sometimes. There should probably be some arrangement where on-wiki discussions have priority over off-wiki ones, except in some cases where privacy is involved - that's probably the case here on enwiki. Saying that, it's always been the case that admins have emailed one another with "private" evidence, such as sockpuppet "tells". -- zzuuzz (talk) 04:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd never heard of that mailing list and was never invited to join, so I'm almost feeling left out now ;-) But, I've done a lot of unblock reviewing in my time, including at UTRS more recently, and UTRS requests are usually only considered for blocked editors who either don't have talk page access or who need to present private information that's not suitable for a public unblock request. URTS requests that do not satisfy those conditions are rejected with an instruction to request unblock in the usual way using the editor's talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I think the list (which I used to be subscribed to) became deceased a few years back following the introduction of UTRS. Why its page still exists, and its relationship to UTRS is something I don't really get. But I think really it's all UTRS these days, which is similar. I say it's over-relied upon because there can sometimes be a philosophy that's it's OK to promptly yank talk page access, and just direct them to UTRS instead. I don't know if eswiki has that issue. It's not the same as an on-wiki discussion. Incidentally, I am not subscribed to UTRS. For one thing its privacy policy is horribly inconsistent, and that's always an issue for me. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I used to refuse to use the old UTRS registration/login system, but that's gone now. It just uses the common OAUTH login and is open to all admins without having to register - you just have to click through a couple of dialogs. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for the input. The list at es.wiki is used often. I understand admins might want to discuss some sensitive issues there, but several members of the community have objected recently when a user who has been blocked for seven years (actually, a former admin at es.wiki) who is very active in other projects, such as Commons, asked to be unblocked. Every time, he is told to try again in six months or a year. On some ocassions it was discussed openly, with several admins in favor of unblocking but no consensus was reached (consensus at es.wiki seems to be defined as reaching a unanimous decision). It has also been discussed previously in the local Village Pump among regular users (not admins) and the majority were in favour of giving him a chance. His most recent request - made publicly in his discussion page - a couple of weeks ago was resolved in this closed mailing list in less than two hours and the admin who closed the unblock request blocked the user's discussion page so that he (or any other user) cannot edit the page. Some of us think this is very unfair and that deciding an unblock request in this manner is not transparent or healthy for the community. We lack an arbitration committee or any other venue for appealing. Again, thanks for replying. --Maragm (talk) 14:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Wiki-oligarchy vs "not a bureaucracy"?

I was thinking about how I would go about explaining WP:FRAM (or one of the sillier shortcuts) to a friend. The problem is that the whole situation just sounds completely absurd to anyone unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works. Think about it:

So, the Wikimedia Foundation, that's the people who own Wikipedia, issued a one-year ban to a long-time editor for alleged harassment of other users, following a confidential investigation by their Trust & Safety people. The community kicked up such a fuss that, after a few weeks, the Board of Trustees of the whole foundation had to issue a statement about it. In that statement, they turned the problem back over to the community-driven process that, um...

And then I run out of ideas. How do you even explain ArbCom to "mere mortals" who have not read all of our Byzantine policies and guidelines? At least you'd have to explain the entire Dispute Resolution process, and then further explain that Fram's case is skipping to the end, which is itself unusual albeit less controversial (but not uncontroversial, see for example WP:EEML). So I thought a little more:

On Wikipedia, they have a whole system for dealing with problems. But it's not a bureaucracy. You can tell, because they have a guideline that says so. Oh, wait, it's a policy. The distinction between policies and guidelines is very important in non-bureaucracies, of course. But, seriously, a central reason they're not a bureaucracy is that they have this rule that says you can ignore other rules if they get in the way of "improving or maintaining Wikipedia." But then they have another rule, that you have to assume everyone is actually here to improve or maintain the encyclopedia. Now, that's a good rule, not just for editing encyclopedias, but for any communal activity. But the combination of those two rules seems to imply that nobody is subject to any rules at all, because everyone is (presumptively) always trying to improve or maintain the encyclopedia. So is it a total anarchy? Of course not. If you're new, don't expect the slightest bit of slack on following the rules. The actual rule is, you can only break the rules if nobody wants to enforce them against you any more.

That got away from me a bit. But I'm just a tad concerned at the idea that our system of governance is basically an oligarchy masquerading as a bureaucracy. Maybe, if we gutted IAR and the fifth pillar, and turned Wikipedia into a proper bureaucracy, bending to the iron law instead of pretending the emperor is still clothed, we'd be fairer towards new users. Or at least we'd cut silly wiki-drama in half overnight (How many times do we see people arguing over whether a given application of IAR is "reasonable"?). But that will never happen, because IAR is a sacred cow. So I have no idea if any of this is actionable, or what, but I thought I'd write it here anyway, just on the million-to-one odds that anyone cares what I think. Feel free to ignore me. --NYKevin 06:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

What is a "proper bureaucracy"?Slatersteven (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I find your thoughts interesting, NYKevin, and I think that perhaps you might be right if this project only consisted of the English Wikipedia. But the fact that there are 400+ projects within WMF is an indication to me that the entirety is a bureaucracy. While the highest authority might be considered to be the Board of Trustees, the Executive Director and the stewards, the fact is that each project is more or less independently run (for better or worse). So, I consider WMF to be a decentralized bureaucracy, maybe like a commonwealth. But I'm no expert on political systems or governance so it's just my best guess. Liz Read! Talk! 21:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Is this really what WP ought be about, w rgd blp talkpage discussions about their subject's notability coming across really as wp:Attack pages?

(This seems as good as any place to post what follows.) Jessica Wade is quoted w/i ChemistryWorld.com[9]:

‘It’s also incredibly intrusive and degrading to have someone discuss whether someone’s notable enough to be on Wikipedia – a website that has pages about almost every pop song, people who are extras in films no one has ever heard of and people who were in sports teams that never scored'

--09:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hodgdon's secret garden (talk • contribs)

I have high respect for Wade's work in trying to rectify the lack of biographies of notable women. Discussing the fact that reliable sources did not cover a subject and thus Wikipedia cannot have an article is not an attack on the subject. If anything, it's an attack on those sources that should have covered the subject and didn't. WP:BLP's requirement for adequate sourcing exists to protect living people against unsourced or poorly sourced claims about their lives. So lamenting the existence of articles about "almost every pop song, people who are extras in films no one has ever heard of and people who were in sports teams that never scored" misses the point that those subjects received coverage in reliable sources and many women who should did not and thus tries to shift the burden onto Wikipedia that actually lies on these sources. Regards SoWhy 09:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I think that's a good explanation. I would add that since no specific example was provided, in the spirit of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that Wikipedia is in a constant "war" against undue promotion and that many articles are added everyday about non-notable topics (and songs) that may simply not have been properly evaluated yet. Since articles about people are more sensitive and that it's not always a good thing to have an article about us, editors attempt to be more careful in that area (with the BLP policy already mentioned). —PaleoNeonate – 10:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Precisely. In the case at hand, the heat that has been generated by repeating and publicising the deletion discussions is giving us a situation where there are may soon be more independent sources debating the lack of a Wikipedia article about the subject than there are independent sources actually discussing the subject's achievements. The draft currently contains a section about Wikipedia mentioning our apparent "discrimination against articles about women in science". In reality, any discrimination visible in our coverage just reflects the sourcing position (and some good people are trying hard to make our coverage less biased wherever possible). I don't see us relaxing our sourcing requirements for special subjects (no matter how worthy the individual cause) as a particularly good idea, especially for BLPs. —Kusma (t·c) 10:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
What I was referring to is such talkpage weighings-in-on as What-credentialist-criterion-/x/-need-be-met-before-researcher-/y/-might-be-appropriately-described-on-Wikipedia-as-a-scientist by entirely random and anonymous bunches of ah hubristic wankers. (Sorry for my injudicious word choice...well of course at "bunches." Please do mentally insert above in its stead whatever collective term might be considered more acceptable. "Gang"? "Plague"? "Snobbery"?)
  1. InternationalUnionOfPureAndAppliedChemistry[10]
  2. ChronicleFlask[11]: "One of the scientists involved, Clarice E. Phelps, is believed to be the first African American to discover a chemical element in recent history, having worked on the purification of the 249Bk before it was shipped to Russia and used to help discover element 117. Tennessine’s discovery was officially announced in Dubna in 2010 — the result of a Russian-American collaboration — and the name tennessine was officially adopted in November 2016. Who discovered it? Well, the lead name on the paper published in Physical Review Letters is Yuri Oganessian (for whom element 118 was named), but have a look at that paper and you’ll see there’s a list of over 30 names, and that doesn’t even include all the other people who worked in the laboratories, making contributions as part of their daily work."--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 10:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
It appears the article title has been blocked per the AfD, so an admin would have to release it, and then resubmit the article so someone working AfC can approve it (or the admin can do it). I will be happy to help if you ping me and let me know the article title was released. Atsme Talk 📧 16:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Jimb U also have admin privileges on the englishlang wikipedia. Wd u b so kind as to release Draft:Clarice E. Phelps from its salting so it cd b submitted again thu the AfC per the likewise kind offer by user:Atsme immed.ly above? Thk u so much Dearest wikiFounder--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Hodgdon's secret garden, whoever decides to take any admin actions with respect to this article should be clear that the last admin who unilaterally undeleted the article ended up desysopped. —Kusma (t·c) 20:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
This was raised on my talk page by Atsme. I basically agree with what has been said here. I'll repeat what I said on my talk page: this article has been discussed so many times that I'm not comfortable lifting the salting without consensus at DRV. I'd also add from an intellectual standpoint that I'm not really sure how we should deal with people who's claim to notability comes from us not considering them notable. That doesn't really square with the ideas in the BLP policy in my view. It might be better to include a section in Criticism of Wikipedia. That being said, I'm honestly tired of talking about this article and won't be participating in any discussions about it going forward other than to say I'm fine with whatever the consensus of the community is going forward, but I won't be changing anything without that consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Hm It'd make 4 sm pretty damn cool headlines in the newspapers - showing my age! - media if let's say Jimb would take me up on my humble suggestion above & then b taken by dumber members the decumbent faction of the english wikipedia ah 'Community' to its supreme court of so-called arbcom & likewise face poss dysopping. (In my humble opinion for what it's worth in any case all things said and done and all that and so forth etc &c of course --> Here's - user_talk:TonyBallioni/Archive_27#Requesting_Clarice_Phelps_article - a relevant discussion @ signor Ballioni's tk pg that might b of interest O Jimb Talkpage Stalkers)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Hodgdon's secret garden, I really don't mean to sound rude when I say this, but I don't know how to respond to your ping because the text you posted is incoherent. From what I can gather you want Jimbo to overrule multiple community discussions and an ArbCom case that basically said admins can't overrule community discussion on this subject matter. I'm also not particularly sure why you're linking to my talk page archive unless it is to get more people to bother me into lifting the salting, which as I have said multiple times now, I am unwilling to do without community consensus as this draft has been discussed so many times that lifting the salting would be tantamount to overruling consensus unilaterally. Again, what you have written is incoherent so I can't really respond to any specific concerns about that discussion as I don't know what they are. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Desalinating wouldn't be against any community consensus in that the salting had been unilaterally done for dare I say the community's ersatz convenience by a certain admin (Was it TonyBallioni? It's hard to follow all the ins & outs). As for the incoherence above I just fancy that the Founder Jimb's being taken to ArbCom as a marvelous popcorn move.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
That is what I have been saying from the off, we are not the problem, all those RS are who are spending more time telling us we should have articles on these women then they are writing the articles we could use as sources (or in the case of Ms Phelps not even writing about them in the chapter about the very thing they are supposed to be notable for)_.Slatersteven (talk) 08:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Articles on significant women are difficult to get included on Wikipedia. See:

But articles on African Americans are even more difficult to get approved. See:

And then there are female African Americans.

And films featuring African Americans:

And exceptionally notable subjects such as:

FloridaArmy (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I looked at many of the above articles and the problem is not that it's hard to get a woman or an African-American person into Wikipedia, but rather that many of the draft articles above (that I looked at) lacked adequate sourcing to clearly demonstrate notability and in turn pass AFC. That might also be a result of social conditions leading to minimal reporting on the subjects during their lifetimes. That said, I did find extra sources for Gertrude Ellen Hayes and pushed that to article space.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Draft:Frank Schaub (now live) is another interesting one. In an entry on a state prosecutor most known for misconduct I am told that it has to be more positive and balanced. So I looked again for sources and saw he was again found guilty of misconduct just 2 years before his death and suspended for 30 days. How important is it that we find something positive to say about a guy who is best known for putting an African American man in jail after accusing him of killing his children and then engaging in misconduct to win at trial. Where exaclty am I to find accolades balance the ample coverage of this fellows wrongdoing? Are we expected to do the same for all villainous persons we cover? Lynch mobs? Where am I to find glowing coverage of this fellow that I should include? FloridaArmy (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • You could always write that his dog liked him, I guess.
    I'll confess to a hint I left astute readers: years ago, when I was writing about the smaller towns/large villages of Ethiopia, in some cases I had a hard time finding more about the locale than its population & location. About the only thing I could find in a few cases was the odd note about how many students attended the local school one year. If you find that fact in an article on an Ethiopian town, consider it a sign I was scraping the bottom of the barrel. -- llywrch (talk) 23:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Also:

Note also this quote from the same article:

"Jessica Wade, a physical chemist at Imperial College London, UK, who created both Phelps’ and Tuttle’s page, says out of the 600 articles she has written so far about female, black, minority ethnic or LGBTQ+ scientists, six have been deleted as they weren’t deemed notable. But almost every single one is being scrutinised – particularly those on ethnic minority women, Wade says."

That seems to be a pretty good success-ratio to me. Also, while I can't say if her new BLP:s (I assume they are that or mostly that) are scrutinised more or less than a general new BLP, new BLP:s should be scrutinised. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • If Jessica Wade took notability rules ultra-seriously and didn't start articles for which adequate sourcing does not exist, there would be fewer problems in the world. Notability rules exist for a purpose; being called on them is neither intrusive nor degrading, it just means that someone needs to get stuff sourced out better. Now, that said, I think we might need to take a look at rationalizing the Special Notability Guideline for academics. Carrite (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Carrite, the issue with PROF reform is that there are basically 3 camps: The AfC camp that hates it because they consider it overly inclusive already and want to either completely eliminate it or make it significantly harder for academics to qualify, the North American PhDs who basically dominate the status quo there and are willing to discuss changes, but are unlikely to support anything too radical, and the Women in Red/Outreach camp who basically want the exact opposite of what the AfC reviewers want and consider PROF to be the most discriminatory guideline on the entire project. It makes change difficult to say the least. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I think the key is to take a page from pro sports and come up with a new low-bar based on (X a certain academic rank) at (Y a certain level of university). Basically, taking American football for example, if a person plays a single snap in a regular season game in the top professional league, they become automatically notable. "Every full professor at every major university," for example, with "major university" carefully defined or even made part of a master list. Anything short of that, and the investigation should get much more rigorous. Since the standard for pro football is almost universally accepted, there is little time lost to endless deletion debates and comparatively little work lost on pages dedicated to bios of marginally notable players. Admittedly this change in the field of academics would be met with resistance, but fixing that is simply a political campaign in which it would need to be demonstrated that a low bar serves the greater good, rather than the current system. Carrite (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Extending this: I suspect that full professors are disproportionately "old white men," and that this would be the big objection from one side on that particular low bar cut; the fireworks probably happen with deserving biographies about individuals holding lower academic rank. I'm personally not adverse to a different notability line yet, but that would be a really tough sell politically. With more women than men graduating university these days, the gender disparity among top ranking academics will be attenuating over time, undoubtedly, but my proposed SNG notability line certainly doesn't solve every problem in the current moment. Carrite (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
And again the issue here is not our polices, but off wiki lack of interest. Personally I think it is wrong that a woman who gets her tits out is more notable then a nurse, but then equally she is more notable then most men. But that is not down to us, that is down to third party RS who want to flog newspapers. The irony (tragedy) is that (for example) Ms Phelps may (may, not is) now be notable, but only for this controversy and not for her work. And whose fault is that, who considered her lack of article here more important then her work? Slatersteven (talk) 08:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, it would have helped our discussions if we would have changed to a different phrase or word than, "notability" (as I think was supported by many several years ago), it sends too many in the wrong directions in discussions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
You have a point, but what else could we call it, fame?Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
God no. I think I would call it Article inclusion criteria (WP:ARTIC), or article development criteria (WP:ARDC), or article intake criteria (WP:ARTIC), or some such - the discussion is about the article not some quality of the subject, but you can read all about the 2014 discussion. here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Then no, the last thing we need is even more jargon that the average person is not going to understand. What we need is to make our inclusion criteria easier to understand in an intuitive sense if we are to avoid more of this kind of thing, not less intuitive.Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
By giving something a name that suggests we are concerned with some quality in the person (She is not notable), it's not going to get better and it hasn't. Article Inclusion Criteria (the article can/cannot meet the standard), etc, is perfectly easy to understand as it says exactly what it is. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Notability is easy to get (they have to be notable), Article Inclusion Criteria does not (at a glance at the title) establish what a person has to pass to get an article. The issue is not confusion over the title, but what the the criteria are (the old one of a bird with big tits is more notable a nurse). This does not address that issue. In effect it is using a sticking plaster to treat a broken leg. I will add that one of the most frequent criticism I have seen of WP is our over use of obscure jargon (particularly acronyms) that are meaningless to the average user.Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Incorrect. Or it would not be a discussion of years standing. When a writer writes about some person they have taken note of, and they have things that suggest at least some other people have taken note of that person, the present word naturally makes little sense, it's not at all that the subject does not have the 'ability' to be 'not'iced, its that the criteria meeting evidence has not been produced for inclusion of an article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I would then consider to make ARTIC/ARDC/ARTIC a guideline which explains what WP:N means (it may even include some material that we now have in WP:N). But it is not going to change anything, the problem is still the same: people are going to argue that they are to be included (or that the person they are writing about is to be included), and when someone tells them that they do not meet the criteria, they will feel harassed. It is the same with WP:NOT -> WP:EL, people are going to argue that their twitter needs to be mentioned because <whatever>, and they get angry when you tell them that under our rules it is superfluous. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
But it would change it for the better, it would change the focus from where people think it is, and think it is a personal statement about a person, 'is this person notable' to where the focus truly is 'are the right sources for an article here'. -- lessening, "notability" discussions "coming across really as wp:Attack pages", and lessening the idea that Wikipedians don't think 'Jane Person' matters, because actually we may well think she really matters, but the issue is not a quality of Jane Person ('if anyone has quality she does', 'if anyone has that quality she does not') it's a criteria for making an article. (Sure people will still want the articles they want, and will be angry at not getting what they want, but the discussion will not sound like we are talking about a quality of a person). Or to put it another way, when these things hit the press, you often see rhetorical question/answers like, 'How is Jane Person, who has demonstrably done all these great things unnotable? The only answer has to be corruption because, the world in fact knows (has noted) she has done things.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Let's not forget that the core criteria for inclusion has to be that there is reasonable coverage in reliable sources. For academics, we might construct basic articles from online CVs (not independent, though), conference program committee lists, and publication lists. But it's often hard to find good sources that go beyond dry data ("my article" was first merged into the one on my main software contribution, where the merged info was later struck as peacocky ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Not sure that meets "in depth". It may not be fair that academics are not "noteworthy" in a publicity sense (and thus do not get the kind of coverage that makes it easy to pass notability). But again, the fault does not lie with our polices, but off Wikimedia who are too keen to shift the blame onto us for their failure to give press coverage to these people.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Did I read this correctly: "a bird with big tits"? Seriously? And you wonder why. 23:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100F:B110:F4D5:FD11:8FBB:8096:F0B2 (talk)

A gift for you

I made us matching founder boxes to celebrate our greatness. Thinking of giving one to Bauder too. Enjoy!

This user is the founder of an
online encyclopedia.

Sole Flounder (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Fan mail from some flounder?
Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Nice clip, Smallbones. Rocky and Bullwinkle are great. Sole Flounder (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

While we are reviewing WMF bans

The SanFranBan of BrillLyle also stinks to high heaven. But hey, who's paying attention, if she got banned by WMF due to an anonymous well-connected complainant or two without due process, the ban must be right, because, you know, they never make mistakes or engage in petty political backstabbing. Carrite (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

By "stinks to high heaven" you mean nobody knows why she was banned, because nobody can know, because the T&S policy forbids telling anyone about the standards, evidence, complaints, assessments, or recommendations involved? EllenCT (talk) 08:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
There's a little media-coverage on that, but in it she states her real name and I don't know if she ever put that on-WP (as in OUTING). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Reviewing this ANI stuff and the surrounding WP:OUTING incidents, it's a well-deserved ban. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Carrite, I'm with Headbomb. I remember the case, and it's worthwhile noting that they were blocked first (by Oshwah) before that block became a WMF ban, with commentary in the ANI thread. I don't see the problem. Plus, it's just not clear what "due process" means outside of a courtroom. And three days passed between the initial block (which left open TPA) and the ban (which removed it)--the editor had been editing every single day for a week, so it seems very likely that they had ample opportunity to respond. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
"Due Process" means the ability to confront one's accuser, to present potentially exculpatory evidence, and to have matters rationally decided by an unbiased third party. Carrite (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
There was plenty of time to do that, the problematic behaviour was long term and sustained, and no 'exculpatory evidence' will exonerate someone from outing someone else. And uninvolved third parties did make decisions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
"Confront one's accuser" sounds simple and fun, until we are dealing with cases of asymmetrical harassment, for instance, as can happen easily when one party has a powerful forum at one's disposal, or the technical wherewithal to commit internet harassment (as happened with a couple of banned people). Drmies (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
As one who is trying to improve our harassment policy, I wondered if in your view having an on-wiki posse could also constitute "asymetrical harassment"? I remember that BrillLyle was interviewed by Quartz. ([12]) Is consulting with journalists considered "asymetrical harassment" by our good community of anybodies? Feel free to comment either here or on the policy TP about these two questions, and of course, may you have a brilliant (& not too wet) day!  :)🌿 SashiRolls t · c 14:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm with Carrite on the process side, though I don't know about the case. This idea where a secret committee can be judge, jury and executioner, try you in absentia, at a trial where you can't participate, or even get to know what you are charged with is absurd.....the pendulum swung too far against the accused. North8000 (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Carrite, due process can ultimately always be achieved by suing the foundation. We are not a microstate and this idea that our 'law' system should pretend to be one, frankly is scary to me. Cultish. There is a legitimate state that takes care of any ultimate justice that people are entitled to. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
The "cultish" aspect, it seems to me, is the example in which connected insiders can collaborate with professional staff to eliminate anyone for any reason, dressed as "Terms of Service Violation," without evidence presented, without the ability to appeal. "Trust us, we never make mistakes," is not satisfactory and the statement above that the court system is the only vehicle for respite is rather shocking, given the economic mismatch of parties. Frankly, the ill-named "Trust and Safety" department should be dealt out of behavior policing entirely as we have a system in place with far fewer fairness and conflict of interest defects. They should limit themselves to their actual purview, which is protecting users from potential pedophiles and those threatening or using physical violence. Carrite (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • While I agree completely with Carrite above, it is a waste of time discussing the matter here. WMF is a law unto itself and our editorship is powerless because it is too large and diverse to motivate and take any real and meaningful action. Therefore, the only way of challenging the WMF would be through the USA legal system (putting aside “no legal threats”). That would be costly and risky and beyond most of the editors, and probably impossible for those outside the USA. I wonder how many suitable educated, sufficiently interested, courageous and superannuated American editors Wikipedia has - none I suspect. Furthermore, this behaviour may be perfectly legal, much as we dislike it - who knows? Therefore, the WMF can and will continue to behave exactly as it pleases. To coin a UK phrase: “like it or lump it!” Giano (talk) 09:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Jimmy!

Hi. I'm Dove Windsor, a massive fan of yours. You are my hero! I was wondering if you could join forces with me to create a new wiki. 81.133.5.100 (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Seems you've that article has just been disappeared. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Article now restored and at RfD. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Is Dove Windsor the past-participle of Dave Windsor? ——SerialNumber54129 11:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Only if you're from Sarf Lund'n and you called him "Dive". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Dave; is there a God? ——SerialNumber54129 12:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Controlling severe incivility and threats to our users

Hello Jimmy and page watchers. Please have a look at this survey of methods to stop Sybil attacks (what we call sockpuppetry). Some of the worst intimidation or users happens when a banned editor hops from one account to another, repeatedly attacking the user. I think it would be useful to upgrade Wikipedia's user authentication system to both better secure our accounts and make it easier to detect and stop Sybil attacks . Could we set up a forum for discussion between interested community members, academics, leadership and developers to discuss this problem? It is a hard, unsolved problem that is of interest to researchers. Jehochman Talk 20:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't see a date on the paper, but am guessing 2006. Are you saying that our sockpuppet detection hasn't caught up to 2006 state-of-the-art yet? Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
It was published in 2006. That’s a cutting edge academic paper. You can see it outlines different techniques for blocking Sybil attacks. Those approaches remain valid but there is still no standard solution. Everybody cobbles together their own “half fast” process. Jehochman Talk 04:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
#Another issue: fairness moved below. EllenCT (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
May I section this off? It’s a valid but different concern. I’m talking about stalkers who get banned immediately and then do their sick antics via sock puppetry. Being fair or nice to dangerous people will not alter their trajectory at all. At the moment T&S, the Checkuser team and multiple admins are tied up playing whack a mole with an assortment of dangerous users.
If we had a better technical means to implement "blocked means blocked", that would free up volunteers and staff to help manage the types of situations you highlight. Jehochman Talk 03:08, 12 July 2019 (UTC), 03:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Sure. EllenCT (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
The technical means to implement "blocked means blocked" already exists. Just block by browser fingerprint (see https://panopticlick.eff.org/ and https://panopticlick.eff.org/about for details) when traditional IP-based and cookie-based methods fail. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
That would be a good solution, Guy, if paid editors and the uncivil were unable to use more than one browser. EllenCT (talk) 04:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Switching browsers and IP addresses is easy. Switching hardware, not so much. There are ways to lock this down if people are willing to listen to new ideas. Jehochman Talk 04:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. EllenCT, try it using different browsers. I think you will be surprised at how many things stay the same as you change browsers. Plus, I could easily hit Wikipedia from 10,000 different IPs and 10,000 different email addresses, but I would have a heck of a time trying to hit Wikipedia from even 100 different browsers. The browser-hopping abuser would run out of browsers fairly quickly. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
What "things"? I tried your link and it said, "Does your browser unblock 3rd parties that promise to honor Do Not Track? No," with a red X like that's a bad thing. I tried it with a different browser on the same hardware and almost all of the detailed fingerprint was different. How much good faith should I assume before I start doubting that you know what you are talking about? EllenCT (talk) 07:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
You’re on the right track but the better solution is to tie identity to trusted pieces of hardware. Then it’s much harder to do bulk socking. Jehochman Talk 05:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Is there not a dialectic tension between prevention of sockpuppetry, and upholding privacy and pseudonymity? Sure, you can start tying identity to ownership of magical hardware fingerprints, but that is also cat-and-mouse: many of us know how to use virtualization and other obfuscation to present variable fingerprints. Wikipedia is fundamentally presented through a WWW browser interface: while it is progressively chummier with the client hardware, it's not nearly as chummy as a mobile application or native Windows/MacOS/Linux application would be. Meanwhile, Wikipedia holds itself out as "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit!" so are we going to (again) qualify "anyone" as referring to "anyone who is able to confirm identity through use of acceptable, trusted cryptographic hardware elements embedded in his client equipment"? Elizium23 (talk) 07:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
There is a way to do it that preserves privacy. The device fingerprint is run through a one way hash function. In this way a service like Wikipedia can verify that a user’s personal device(s) don’t control multiple accounts. The hashed fingerprint is a meaningless number for any other purpose. It can’t be used to dox the user or to identify the user on any other system. Jehochman Talk 09:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jehochman: are there any reliable sources in agreement with your contentions or documenting what you have described as a solution to sockpuppetry, privacy, and/or security concerns? EllenCT (talk) 02:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
This is a discussion not an encyclopedia article. What I’m proposing hasn’t been done before, but can be done; it’s my original research. I’m a computer scientist and I’ve presented the idea to other computer scientists who agree that it is feasible. Jehochman Talk 02:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

In that case, do you agree to license your trade secrets under reasonable and customary terms? If you can convince the legal department your algorithm can solve the problem of identifying people using more than one device, then perhaps they will form a patent cross-licensing consortium with you as some sort of a beneficiary. EllenCT (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

We can fairly easily defend ourselves against the less clever sockpuppets- The cleverer ones will always be a challenge--whatever we can do to detect them technologically, will be matched by their increasing technological sophistication and the increasing use by everyone of privacy-protecting devices. (I gather it's similar in the world in general). There seems to be an assumption above that people only own one device, and if we can securely identify it, we'd catch them. But almost everyone owns both a computer and a phone. And even a total non-sophisticate like myself has multiple computers, with different operating system and browser versions, and access to many more. (at the moment, they usually use the same ip address, but it would be trivial to change that). DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Here's an interesting thought: categorizing editors by IP address is so 90s and invades our privacy. Why not, instead, ID anonymous editors by a fingerprint? Cryptographically hash stuff like User-Agent, hardware info, protocol fingerprint. Correlate that with anonymous usage instead of a per-IP basis. If it's one-way hashed, it's not personally identifying. It could make checkusers and LTA tracking somewhat easier. I don't know, is it a solution in search of a problem? Of course by DGG's examples, that doesn't guarantee a 1:1 correlation between fingerprints and users, but the way we still use IPs for this is veritable Stone Age tech. Elizium23 (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, to quote Stephen Stills, " ... Paranoia strikes deep/Into your mind it will creep." If Jimmy Wales or WMF starts asking for identifying information like a fingerprint, people are going to accuse them of being in cahoots with one sneaky government entity or another. — Maile (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
(Just to be perfectly clear, I am not speaking of biometric fingerprints at all.) You do realize that they already have such fingerprints, and they are used on a regular basis here? WP:CheckUser access is based entirely upon fingerprinting the client based on behind-the-scenes logs. A CheckUser evaluates the similarity of sockpuppet accounts based on myriad details such as the ones I already mentioned. So no, it is not a scary thing that we are leaving digital fingerprints everywhere we go. It is merely a question of how they will be collected and used by TPTB. Personally, I think that exposing them as asymmetric cryptographic hashes would have a favorable impact on public awareness that digital fingerprints are routinely collected and utilized behind-the-scenes, everywhere we go. Elizium23 (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Checkuser is a form of fingerprinting. It has the potential to be privacy invading. What I propose is to replace Checkuser with something that preserves privacy while doing a better job of identifying sock puppets. This will require a lot of discussion. Jehochman Talk 02:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Example CU results
It may make it clearer to those commenting here, to actually see what Checkusers do and don't see when running a check. I've never understood why we're so coy about what it does and what its limitations are; MediaWiki is freely available open-source software, and anyone who's interested can download it and see for themselves exactly what it can and can't tell you. ‑ Iridescent 11:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Yup. It’s IP and user agent. My proposal is an authentication system using public key cryptography. It only works for logged in users, but then it works very well and can’t be dodged in any way I can think of. The issues DGG mentions are why it’s a tough project but we can track multiple device hashes. EllenCT, yes we’d license the tech to WMF free of charge in perpetuity. We’d license it to any non profit, educational or personal user too. We only want to charge money making businesses. A side benefit is that it would reduce the hacking of accounts, eliminate the need to type a username and password, and replace our clunky 2FA implementation. Jehochman Talk 11:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I thought your proposal was a one-way hash of identifying data? Bitter Oil (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Another issue: fairness

See slide 60, "User's perspective: Perceived fairness" here.

Chang and Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil (2019) "Trajectories of Blocked Community Members: Redemption, Recidivism and Departure" says, "trajectories are tied to factors rooted both in the characteristics of the blocked individual and in whether they perceived the block to be fair and justified.... build a more comprehensive lexicon of unfairness.... Understanding whether a user feels they are treated unfairly constitutes an interesting research question on its own." EllenCT (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Editing News #1—July 2019

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Did you know?

Did you know that you can use the visual editor on a mobile device?

Every article has a pencil icon at the top. Tap on the pencil icon to start editing.

Edit Cards

Toolbar with menu opened

This is what the new Edit Cards for editing links in the mobile visual editor look like. You can try the prototype here: 📲 Try Edit Cards.

Welcome back to the Editing newsletter.

Since the last newsletter, the team has released two new features for the mobile visual editor and has started developing three more. All of this work is part of the team's goal to make editing on mobile web simpler.

Before talking about the team's recent releases, we have a question for you:

Are you willing to try a new way to add and change links?

If you are interested, we would value your input! You can try this new link tool in the mobile visual editor on a separate wiki.

Follow these instructions and share your experience:

📲 Try Edit Cards.

Recent releases

The mobile visual editor is a simpler editing tool, for smartphones and tablets using the mobile site. The Editing team has recently launched two new features to improve the mobile visual editor:

  1. Section editing
    • The purpose is to help contributors focus on their edits.
    • The team studied this with an A/B test. This test showed that contributors who could use section editing were 1% more likely to publish the edits they started than people with only full-page editing.
  2. Loading overlay
    • The purpose is to smooth the transition between reading and editing.

Section editing and the new loading overlay are now available to everyone using the mobile visual editor.

New and active projects

This is a list of our most active projects. Watch these pages to learn about project updates and to share your input on new designs, prototypes and research findings.

  • Edit cards: This is a clearer way to add and edit links, citations, images, templates, etc. in articles. You can try this feature now. Go here to see how: 📲Try Edit Cards.
  • Mobile toolbar refresh: This project will learn if contributors are more successful when the editing tools are easier to recognize.
  • Mobile visual editor availability: This A/B test asks: Are newer contributors more successful if they use the mobile visual editor? We are collaborating with 20 Wikipedias to answer this question.
  • Usability improvements: This project will make the mobile visual editor easier to use.  The goal is to let contributors stay focused on editing and to feel more confident in the editing tools.

Looking ahead

  • Wikimania: Several members of the Editing Team will be attending Wikimania in August 2019. They will lead a session about mobile editing in the Community Growth space. Talk to them about how editing can be improved.
  • Talk Pages: In the coming months, the Editing Team will begin improving talk pages and communication on the wikis.

Learning more

The VisualEditor on mobile is a good place to learn more about the projects we are working on. The team wants to talk with you about anything related to editing. If you have something to say or ask, please leave a message at Talk:VisualEditor on mobile.

PPelberg (WMF) (talk) and Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

What is WMF's responsibility, re: Assange's treatment, if anything?

What is WMF supposed to do with this information, juxtaposed with this information? Ignore it? None of our business? I wonder what a 1950ish WMF would have done, if anything, about MLK's incarcerations, of relatively super short duration, or about South Africa's Apartheid? Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Does WMF have the right or duty or obligation to express an opinion regarding freedom of the press implications surrounding Assange's treatment and right to a fair trial? Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

That would be "nothing", "yes", "yes" and "no" respectively to your four questions. You are aware that the only connection between Wikipedia and Wikileaks is four letters in the name and they have nothing whatsoever to do with us, right? ‑ Iridescent 20:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Altho WP can't really issue any kind of cease and desist letter w rgd generic uses of "Wiki" as a branding option How about in response to the Qs above the responses "Wikipedia has issued the following nuanced news release: ' ----------- ---- ---'" "no" "no" & "of course"?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Jimbo has spoken: "WikiLeaks’ use of wiki has hurt the Wikipedia brand. As Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, has said, “I wish they wouldn’t use the name, they are not a Wiki.” Both the general public and public officials have at times mixed up the two websites.". Not much else he can do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • ”What is WMF's responsibility, re: Assange's treatment, if anything?” None whatsoever. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Many people want Wikipedia to Right Great Wrongs. They figure that they their opinions are The Truth, and thus are unquestionably correct. They assume without evidence that of course everyone else will agree that [Assange is a hero/Assange is a traitor], [Trump is the best president ever/Trump is the worst president ever], [we need to outlaw guns/we need to protect the right to own guns], [abortion is murder/abortion is a basic human right]...the list goes on and on. It never occurs to them that (bring me my fainting couch!) Wikipedia might support the wrong side. We are doing these people a great service by telling them to fight their silly little political wars somewhere else. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe its a Canadian thing, something called logic, because logically you can not have a neutral point of view encyclopedia with input from a non-free press, therefore, the WMF must should take strong public positions against impediments to a free press, impediments like locking up someone who did nothing more or less than Daniel Ellsberg and forcing an obviously conflicted "judge" on him, and the whole "wiki" "aspect" is not even remotely relevant enough to qualify as even a straw man.
Just as a test in hypocrisy, I wonder how detached you would be if Daniel Ellsberg were to be arrested and given a kangaroo court in 2019 for his deeds of 38 years ago? Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, where was all of this frantic disassociation when Collateral Murder came out, and how did the article stray so far from the "common name" principle? It truly is starting to look like Assange too might have an American holiday named after him long after he is murdered. Freedoms can have fair weather friends too, that is becoming disappointingly obvious. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Whatever else you may think, your opinions (which have nothing to do with logic, but are based on a particular perspective) are not a "Canadian thing", speaking as a Canadian. Risker (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Didn't listen to a word I wrote, did you? You are assume without evidence that of course everyone else agrees with you. Free clue: THEY DON'T. And you would be the first to complain long and loud if Wikipedia decided to follow your advice, get involved in politics, and decided to support what you are sure is the wrong side.
There are dozens of places on the Internet where you can freely push your political POV. Wikipedia is not one of them. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
This has got to do with the body of information/knowledge an encyclopedia does or does not have access too. With most information being classified, this encyclopedia relies upon people like Ellsberg and Assange, unless its going to just be a government censored encyclopedia. That's the point, and its not even a political point. Somebody here is not paying attention; and I don't think its me or Peter Galison. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Neither Ellsberg nor Assange is politically neutral, and Assange publishes only what he cares to and when he cares to, and admits his political intentions in how he does that. It's inherent in the nature of politics that there are no politically neutral sources, though there are sources of different degrees of attempted fairness. It would be naïve to pretend that the ones that agree with me are always totally neutral and accurate and honest . DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
True, but I think Ellsberg and Assange type of information releases that mass media can access and consider reporting ( and subsequently our Encyclopedia may consider ) are just as important as governmental or corporate press/information releases. This is also a moral issue. Do we have the moral authority to do nothing is just as important to consider as whether we have the technical or moral responsibility to do something. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes I have an opinion about whether Wikipedia and/or WMF should add our voice to the discussion about the way Assange is being dealt with. However, what I am trying to address here is whether or not Wikipedia and/or WMF should even consider whether to add our voice(s).
I have a very tough time leaving people like Snowden, Aaron Swartz, Manning, Ellsberg and Assange to the government wolves, especially when I think there is blatant discriminatory, self serving, and fraudulent methodology used by said rabid, sadistic and/or psychopathic (imo) wolves.
Furthermore, we do have something known as "ignore all rules" which I believe said wolves also have and they deploy often and at their leisure, and
Furthermore we are, like it or not, in an age where "disruptive"/"disruption", e.g. AIRBNB and Uber, are seen as progressive and useful and/or unstoppable avenues so I wonder whether WMF and/or Wikipedia should perhaps become more disruptive ourselves?? WMF certainly had no hesitation to act in a disruptive manner (imo) recently on an internal issue; perhaps they/we should apply a similar willingness to disrupt the government wolf pack when they descend upon people like Swartz, Snowden, Manning, Ellsberg and Assange?
Please note, I am just asking a question, even if it is, admittedly, a very leading question, its still just a question. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
You might get more traction when you ask a question if you actually answered questions from others. Questions like "what will you do if Wikipedia follows your advice but decides to support what you are sure is the wrong side?" --Guy Macon (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

UK and Canadian politicians join USA attack on publishing and speech

The easily predicted "monkey see, monkey do" ripple effect is already showing up. Public officials in the UK and Canada are already trying to criminalize speech and publishing that were protected before the USA gave them a good "set an example" with Assange. The Canadian attack is embarrassingly specious, but its the old story, freedoms are not free, somebody has to fight to keep them and protect them, and I think WMF should be in that battle. If the overriding consensus is its none of our business, then so be it. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia edits

only for Jimbo

Y is it so hard for a Wikipedia editor to maintain a project with peace?. Maybe this is not the right place to ask, yet I tried almost all the ways to end disputes and seek to edit in peace. A language which has about 68 million number of native speakers and information just around 50,000+ article. With your vision I started editing that my future generations will be proud to read information in local language. I see that spark in eyes when people come to know that I volunteer to Wikipedia. Being not of that main language yet tried my best to give information in that language just to make information available to all. What does a wikimedian get in return? Rejection by his own people. Just a few see the works and those who have vision to work just show it by their works. Some godawful and those whose everydays grains come due to organizing unproductive workshops on Wikipedia are always ready to harass me in such a way as if they own that project and we their slave. They jelous that how can a non native person do so much work and we being elder and native speakers can't do what this kid doing. Y is even Wikipedia not safe from this emity? Things on English Wikipedia are often easily noticable but what about us who want to make things for own people in our local languages. Many thorns come in these way, am I the alone or are even you unhappy my brother....!?. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 16:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

A content dispute for you!

Seated Founder
Dear Jimbo, I appeal upon you to adjudicate between the simulation hypothesis and Compatibilism#Non-naturalism. Cc User:GorillaWarfare. EllenCT (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Humble Request For A Barnstar

Hello Mr. Wales

I hate to ask, but could you please award me with an original barnstar? It would be quite a honor coming from you. I have been editing and writing for Wikipedia since 2004. Thank you for creating Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. LearnMore (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Yes.

Bluecandystorm (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Question about Trust and Safety timelines

Jimmy, I am hoping either you, JEissfeldt (WMF), or one of your knowledge talk page stalkers can answer a question I have regarding Trust and Safety's processes. On the Meta page describing Office actions it states that the goal for resolving "child protection" investigations is 24 hours. Is this 24 hours from when the report is made, 24 hours from when a staff member reads the report, or 24 hours from when the investigation is begun? I suppose I am also asking if "24 hours" really means 24 hours or two business days.

Let me give an example. Let's say a user who is a registered sex offender were to upload material to Commons that advocated sexual relationships between adults and children. A no-brainer case for a global ban. If this was reported to (and acknowledged by) Trust and Safety late on a Friday, does the "clock" pause for the weekend and start again on Monday? Bitter Oil (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

What difference does it make? They take care of problems as quickly as they can. Additionally, as a user with about 50 edits, the fact that you are here, after having spent early May roiling WP:ANI [13][14] indicates that you are probably a returning user who had a previous account. Please enlighten us about your previous account and what bans or blocks, if any, are in place with that account. Jehochman Talk 17:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I have no idea why you are attacking me for asking simple questions which I am sure Jan or his team can very easily answer. Bitter Oil (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I am not attacking you. I'm asking you to comment on your past accounts. If you had none, just say so. If they were blocked or banned, just say so. The truth is wonderful because it keeps the story consistent. You're under suspicion because it takes truly new users a long time to become aware of AN/I or this page. And new users don't stir the pot with flamebait type edits. [15][16] How is it that your new user account, editing for the first time in April is keenly aware of a controversy from February? Jehochman Talk 18:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I would agree that something about this thread raises an eyebrow. If I had to think of "an example" given by a newcomer, "a registered sex offender" trying to upload kiddie porn would not have ever occurred to me. And I've seen, and blocked, editors who replace Wikipedia content with porn images. Commons:Help:Sexual content has their legal guidelines about this. Tie that in with asking about a time frame, makes it more puzzling. — Maile (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
There's a thread at Wikipediocracy at the moment about a child protection offender who's allegedly still editing, so maybe this is connected? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Ahoy Wikipediocracy users, please email me the details and I'll get somebody to put an end to it. Jehochman Talk 19:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm one of those too, so I'll email you the info. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kalliope (WMF): perhaps you can answer my question? I am sure that this is just a case of the documentation on Meta being unclear. Bitter Oil (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not part of the WMF, but I can give you an answer that is the same as the answer the WMF will give you.
When one is talking about a deadline (as in "the deadline for filing a complaint is 24 hours") The difference between hours, days and business days is important. "One day" might mean that you have between 12:01 AM on Friday and 11:59PM on Saturday, and there is a question of time zones. "One business day" might mean that you have between 12:01 AM on Friday and 11:59PM on the Tuesday after a Monday holiday, and again there is a question of time zones. That being said, "24 hours" always means 24 hours. If they had wanted to say one day they would have said one day.
When one is talking about a response goal, none of this matters. Nothing changes at the end of the 24 hours/1 day 1 business day. The WMF will resolve a child protection investigation in a minute or two whenever they can. They will take immediate and temporary action after the minimum preliminary investigation and modify it later (if needed) whenever they can. And if it takes a week to determine who endangered the child, they will still take immediate action as soon as they can -- there is no deadline or "statute of limitations" as such. So the technical answer to your question is "it doesn't matter. We do it as quick as we can no matter what the 'goal' is". --Guy Macon (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Technically, saying it doesn't matter, is superfluous. ~ R.T.G 22:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Guy Macon@ I was asking how Trust and Safety defines "2 days". You do not know. I have no doubt that Trust and Safety have defined "2 days" and that they track how long it takes to resolve reports against this metric. I wasn't asking for opinions about whether or not this is matters. Bitter Oil (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Your personal opinion that you "have no doubt that Trust and Safety have defined '2 days' and that they track how long it takes to resolve reports against this metric" is completely irrelevant. Can you show us a single scrap of actual evidence that what you have "no doubt" about is actually true? I didn't think so. The WMF has zero reason to give a precise definition of "2 days" in this context. Different WMF employees can use any reasonable definition of "2 days" without it making any difference anywhere. The WMF is not comprised of morons, nor is the WMF comprised of pedants. As a general rule they do not bother to define things exactly when there is no conceivable reason to do so, and as a general rule when they do define things precisely they publish the exact definition.
YOU HAVE YOUR ANSWER. THE ANSWER IS "UNDEFINED/NOT SPECIFIED". THE FACT THAT YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO ACCEPT THE ANSWER DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT YOUR QUESTION HAS BEEN ANSWERED. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
It's an innocent question. It's the subject that is tense. These are reactionary attacks, 2x. You're both going to lay off this thread right now. Fini. Thank you. [17] ~ R.T.G 02:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry Jimbo! Everybody just takes this thing off you... ~ R.T.G 02:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: I am willing to accept whatever answer the Trust and Safety team give me. You do not work on that team and you do not know the answer. Bitter Oil (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
If, as you say, you will not accept an answer from anyone not on the Trust and Safety team, why did you ask your question on the talk page of someone who isn't on the Trust and Safety team[18] and which is not read by anyone on the Trust and Safety team? Try [ https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trust_and_Safety ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Get completely off this newcomer, Macon. You are misrepresenting, biting, and stifling a simple request. I'll define the request for you. How long does it take between a report being made and, including weekends for instance, its being considered over the 24hr goal? Also, from me to you, got a problem with that? Good. @Jehochman:, do you want to fight or something? No? Well okay then. At least we are all having a good time.
I'll pull the nose out of that slightly. Dear Jimbo, how long does it take between a child safety report being made and, including weekends for instance, its being considered over the 24hr goal?() ~ R.T.G 06:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I apologize for not knowing the precise answer to the asked question. The goal is 24 hours, according to the page originally linked. My assumption - and it is only an assumption - is that this means 24 hours, with an hour being defined as a period of 60 minutes, and a minute being defined as 60 seconds, and my favorite encyclopedia says that a second is defined "by taking the fixed numerical value of the caesium frequency ∆νCs, the unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium 133 atom, to be 9192631770 when expressed in the unit Hz, which is equal to s−1." I confess to only partly understanding that definition.
I am playing a bit, of course, with reference to the rather pedantic argument up above. As to whether cases take, on average, longer at the weekends, is not something that I know. I assume, and again this is only an assumption, that the WMF Trust and Safety team would not define their goal as "24 hours" if they meant "1 business day" - child protection issues are quite important and so a speedy response is warranted.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, Jimbo. I have also asked on Meta, as Guy Macon suggested, I will let you know if I get an answer there. Bitter Oil (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Noting with amusement that Bitter Oil seems to be willing to accept answers from some editors who are not T&S members while rejecting answers from others on the grounds that they are not T&S members, the question Bitter Oil asked (unanswered after 2 days so far) may be found here:
meta:Talk:Trust and Safety#Question about Trust and Safety timelines
Bitter Oil is also free to email T&S at ca@wikimedia.org, preferably from the email associated with their account. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Guy Macon, I didn't reply to your earlier comment because I didn't want to be an asshole. I thanked Jimbo for his reply. Since he states that he doesn't know the answer, I haven't accepted it as anything other than his informed opinion. Not sure what the comment about "preferably from the email associated with their account" is supposed to mean, but I will assume it is some kind of insinuation. If I do email Trust and Safety, I will be sure to draw their attention to the treatment I have received in this thread from you and Jehochman. Bitter Oil (talk) 02:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Kundan Srivastava

Hi Jimbo "supreme power",

Namastey from India.

I’m a passionate humanity worker and one of the great fans of yours as being a Internet entrepreneur.

I've created a page was rejected by CNMall41 on 24 July. Earlier they advised me to search the sufficient sources of Kundan and then citation it properly. After submission of draft, the article was rejected for no reasons.

It was flagged saying that this submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. It is previously deleted article about the same person many times and the protection log. I agree, may it was deleted earlier lack of reliable sources, notability (suitable/sufficient sourcing). Now, he has handsome reliable sources and notability. Google is showing his notability too https://g.co/kgs/6TLjbg

Kundan Srivastava is a noted human rights activist and working since many years from the young age featured in BBC World Service and International media for his fearless and selfless works. Secondly, I came to the supreme power and founder to help me to know that on which ground Kundan’s article was actually rejected now? Only because the article about him was deleted earlier many times created by different contributors? I have mentioned the reliable sources, notability (suitable/sufficient).

I’d request you to check the draft once. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lekkala_R_Reddy/sandbox

Please help me to get this article published; if meet all the guidelines. I'll be highly grateful to you.

Wikipedia is for those people who’re doing some notable works in respective fields. Kundan deserves to be included in Wikipedia directory because of his notability.

Many thanks,

Lekkala R Reddy (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Lekkala R Reddy, actually, I didn't tell you to look for sources. Your draft was declined as it has been submitted and deleted so many times that it is protected from creation. The response given to you the help desk is here. If you are going to appeal to authority you should make sure to get the story correct. Also, I want to WP:AGF with you, but its getting kind of hard to do. Also, this deserves a ping to CactusWriter since you left them the same message as well as Theroadislong who responded to your help desk question. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Also curious if the old drafts can be restored to see if the content is similar to this draft. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Dear CNMall41, I didn’t mentioned your name, that you told. I mentioned ‘they’, represents editors of Wikipedia. :331dot 16:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC) said on Teahouse, I can say just casually that the language is very promotional. I would suggest toning it down and sticking to what the sources state.

I did made the corrections after his suggestions. Earlier days some editors asked me to cite reliable sources and notability. From yesterday, Instead of telling that my draft article having reliable sources or not with notability? You’re writing everything. I want the answer about the article have submitted which was rejected by you people.

Please don’t discourage. I’m true heart followers of Wikipedia and have read all the guidelines many times. My submission about Kundan Srivastava has brought notability and reliable sources to be included in Wikipedia directory. Please help me to get justice.

Please help!

Many thanks,

Lekkala R Reddy (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Lekkala R Reddy: please look at your talk page. @Seraphimblade: said that you should try to write about something else. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 03:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

What are you looking for in Bob Mueller's testimony?

Hey Jimbo! So, the American polity, what a ride, right?[19][20][21] Which aspect(s) are you hoping for most from the Mueller congressional testimony?

  1. Flynn's four year relationship with Russian Ambassador Kislyak culminating in dinner with Putin and Jill Stein?[22][23][24]
  2. Manafort's trade of internal polling data and the promise of Russian control of East Ukraine for campaign help with Midwestern Democratic strongholds?[25][26]
  3. or, Trump's RICO charges from since-dropped DoJ investigations still under seal in state courts by Democratic Attorneys General? EllenCT (talk) 08:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Do we really have to turn every page on the Internet into Yet Another Place To Root For Team Red Or Team Blue? It's as bad as those zealots who think that every conversation has to be about Abortion, Gun Control, Scientology, or whatever other hobby horse they are riding this week. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, I'd prefer to discuss Wikipedia here. General political talk belongs elsewhere.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I wonder whether either of you noticed that my first link in this section was to one example of Wikipedia being purged of dozens of reliably sourced statements including the three I mentioned, out of at least half a dozen such diffs within a month of the redacted Mueller Report's release. The second link probably explains how, and the third link I provided likely explains why. So can we still discuss Wikipedia, even when doing so is uncomfortable? EllenCT (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
EllenCT brings up a profound point, nothing to do with politics but rather how fake news finds its way into Wikipedia from "reliable sources". Also, American higher "education", "justice" and "we're #1" branding were laid bare in the "testimony", as I was more embarrassed than ever to be an American while watching that tortured soul struggle; because either, A: The poor guy has gone totally senile yet still appointed to an important job or B: Even worse, he's always been as dumb as a bag of nails. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I am going to ignore the parts where both of you rudely continue discussing whether to root for Team Blue or Team Red after being specifically told by Jimbo to take such discussion elsewhere (I would suggest the Jimbo start kicking people off of his talk page the next time they ignore such a reasonable request), and focus on the one small part claims to be about Wikipedia:

Let's look at the claim of "one example of Wikipedia being purged of dozens of reliably sourced statements". If indeed that is happening, I would like to see diffs supporting the claim, and I would like to see them in a post to WP:NPOVN where such a discussion belongs.

The diff EllenCT cites [27] is actually a diff to 15 edits by 8 users over a 6-week period. The last 14 of those edits[28] actually add sourced content.

What EllenCT appears to be trying to obfuscate is the fact that he/she made a large edit[29] that was reverted[30] followed by EllenCT complaining here without making any attempt to disuses her/his change or the revert on the article talk page[31]

The edit summary of the revert says "Remove litany of charges and circumstances: that's what the tables below are for", and indeed EllenCT's edit contained material that either duplicated what was already in the table or was irreverent. Good revert, in my opinion. If it was a bad revert EllenCT should challenge it on the article talk page. If there is a pattern of removing sourced material favoring Team Blue EllenCT should document it and post the evidence at WP:NPOVN

Let me focus on just one of EllenCT's additions: "Sanctions overwhelmingly passed by Congress in response to Russian electoral interference were not imposed by Trump, to the astonishment of some observers." First, what the hell does this have to do with the topic of "Criminal charges brought in the Special Counsel investigation"? Second, the sources EllenCT cited are quite clear:

Washington has suspended its entry ban for Russian security chiefs, so that they could travel to the United States for consultations with their US colleagues, US Department of State Spokesperson Heather Nauert said.
"I can tell you in a general - in a general matter, if something is considered to be in the national security interest of the United States, just like other countries, we have the ability to waive that so that people can come in to the United States," Nauert said.
"It is no secret that despite our many, many differences <…> with the Russian Government, we also have areas where we have to work together, and one of those is combating terrorism and ISIS (Islamic State terrorist group, outlawed in Russia)."

Besides having absolutely nothing to do with any criminal charges brought in the Special Counsel investigation, this is a normal and rather humdrum bit of politics. Team Red decides to meet with someone -- which they are allowed to do under the law -- and Team Blue says that they should not have done that. Who cares? This is nothing more than throwing shit and seeing if it sticks, and I would have reverted that particular claim if I had noticed it (which would involve me reading political Wikipedia pages; something you could not pay to do)

Can we PLEASE take the annoying political talk somewhere else? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

First, the whitewashing in question was not the only removal of the same material, and I don't have any confidence that complaining about either of those or any of the other removals to WP:NPOVN would do any good. I've been outnumbered on obvious whitewashing before, and I'm sure I will be again. The "astonishment of some observers" which you single out for criticism is completely consistent with the source cited directly after the statement:
...in what observers said was a highly unusual occurrence.... the measures taken late on January 29 by the State and Treasury departments were met with disbelief by many observers, who expected asset freezes, travel bans, and other sanctions to be imposed, none of which happened.
What does that have to do with the charges brought? It "establishes context" as per WP:LEAD: "establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it." Do you claim that those circumstances do not surround the charges? In any case, you're more concerned about getting what is obviously more than an ordinary political content dispute censored here, but have nothing to say about the editor "more embarrassed than ever to be an American" who coincidentally claims to be "a new incarnation" of a Canadian insinuating that a living person is senile? EllenCT (talk) 07:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
American Canadians are actually more plentiful than Canadian Americans, as an interesting data point. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure we should even have articles about dubious criminal charges. If one of this year's subjects of demonization, like Maduro, were to bring charges against a bunch of people, would we have such an article? Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Ashford et al. in "Recent research"

Note: discussion moved here.

Jimbo, do you understand Ashford et al., "Understanding the Signature of Controversial Wikipedia Articles through Motifs in Editor Revision Networks"? I do not. It uses "network motif analysis" which is a new technique from biology depending in turn on principle component analysis, somehow, which has been used to analyze Wikipedia once before in [32]. If anyone can make heads or tails of it, I'd like a to read summary of what exactly they are measuring. Excerpt: "let the revision network of a Wikipedia article be defined by G = (V , E), where each editor is represented by a node v ∈ V. An edge (vi, vj) ∈ V [sic] indicates that editor vi edits the article after editor vj." The hurdle I can't overcome is how groups of three editors are assigned to the specific nodes of the thirteen triangles in Figure 2, which is said to have been done using the algorithm in [33] which has... sixteen such triangles. (Does Section 2.3 imply that the position of the triangle nodes have to do with the order in which triples of editors originally edited the articles in question?) The authors conclude, "Our study gives understanding as to how prediction or classification of articles can be enhanced using the latent structures relating to editor behaviour," without explaining how such predictions or classifications can be made, let alone any characterization of their accuracy, precision, or recall. The figures are fascinating and eerily beautiful but devoid of any intuitive meaning, at least to me. EllenCT (talk) 10:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

refrences for english voice actors

Hi

we need to know which items lead to not permit the page to reachable and remove the page.as an example the page of Persian voice actors. --Txtmarket (talk) 07:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC) Txtmarket

Best regards

Where to propose a temporary, experimental prohibition of IP editing?

Jimbo, I expect you will have seen the project called IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation. It is clear from reading through the "research" for that project that there has been almost no real study of IP editing. The "research" cites a 2007 study of only 250 edits. One tiny study over a decade ago should probably not be relied upon to reflect the situation today. I would like to propose that English Wikipedia disallows all IP editing for a limited time in order to gauge the effect. I'm not sure where to propose this. Any suggestions? Bitter Oil (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

See "Prohibit anonymous users from editing" at WP:PERENNIAL. This has been proposed many times. There is a quote from Jimbo Wales saying "what is commonly called 'anonymous' editing is not particularly anonymous ... and there are good reasons to want vandals on IP numbers instead of accounts". My 2 cents is that a ban on IP editing would not achieve very much.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Two things. The first is that I am proposing a temporary prohibition in our to better assess the impact of IP editing, not a permanent change. The second is that the "Privacy Enhancement" project will hide IPs from most if not all editors so Jimbo's point applies there as well. Bitter Oil (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
The WMF are proposing to hide IP addresses for privacy while perhaps providing some magic to avoid abuse. However, it is very unlikely that such magic is available. Several good comments have listed the problems associated with hiding IPs, for example open proxies. People have started muttering about prohibiting IP editing as a workaround for the anticipated abuse, if the privacy project is ever implemented. Of course there won't be an experimental prohibition but something will be needed if the freedom push takes hold. There are also periodic attempts to allow editing via Tor but fortunately they have not yet been seriously promoted. Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
IP editors expose their IP addresses in the article history, which can have privacy implications. Worse still, this information is still available years later. Eventually this might run into problems with privacy law in some countries. The problem is that hiding IP addresses in the article history would make fighting vandalism a lot harder, hence the calls for a ban (temporary or otherwise) on IP editing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
As far as abuse mitigation goes, I looked back into the big debate about pending changes, which had 302 people supporting the drafting of a policy governing such a practice (admittedly slightly fewer than voted to support giving one person extra power-buttons in the latest RfA). What ever became of this discussion anyway? Surely there's been more recent discussion, policy written following up on the 302 !voters who !voted? Can anyone point me to the follow-up given to the 2012 RfC on pending changes? Maybe 7 years on it might be time to look back on the question of flagged revisions? It would be necessary to make reviewing pending changes somehow as exciting/rewarding as vandal-chasing for wiki-MMORPG players, I suppose... cf. meta
Concerning privacy enhancement, I imagine the WMF are required to keep track of IP addresses in any case (whether masked by an account name or not), but that they are concerned about the very likely future evolution in privacy laws. It's clear from my experience looking into the edits of an AnonymousTM Antiguan IP back in 2016 that this is far from foolproof (Johnhuniq's link above likewise suggests that open proxies are a bit like shell corporations). Moreover, as I understand it, the WMF would be doubly hard-pressed to supply to law enforcement, say, your IP from 2012, Jimbo -- whether you were editing from a proxy IP or not -- since account IP info is periodically purged?
Thoughts on flagged revisions for all BLP (or half if you want a control group) and incentivizing review of same via policy / Jimbit-coin ? 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 11:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

13 years

On 03 February 2006, it was reported to the WMF that our CAPTCHA system discriminates against blind people. See phabricator T6845. This appears to be a direct violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and leaves Wikipedia open to the possibility of a discrimination lawsuit.

In particular, National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp. was a case where a major retailer, Target Corp., was sued because their web designers failed to design its website to enable persons with low or no vision to use it.

So why, after 13 years of inaction, do we not have a set of software requirements (including a testable definition of "done") and a schedule for solving this?

And no, I will not accept any proposed "solution" that lacks the name of an WMF employee who has been given the assignment of fixing this, a budget that says how much the WMF expects to spend on solving this, a deadline that say how long the WMF expects it to take to solve this, and a way for an independent third party to look at the results and verify whether the requirements were met.

Regarding hiring someone else to fix this, I would very much like the idea to be given careful consideration rather than being dismissed out of hand. The WMF is great at running an encyclopedia. Nobody else, anywhere on earth, even comes close. However, running an encyclopedia does not magically confer the ability to create high-quality software, and the WMF has a pretty dismal track record in this area (Examples: Visual Editor, Flow, 13 years of failing to making this obvious but boring improvement to accommodate blind people.) I realize that this will anger some people, but why should it? Olympic-level athletes don't get angry when you tell them that their athletic ability does not magically confer the ability to repair automobiles or do astronomy.

Comments from the phabricator page:

  • "This doesn't just effect addition of external links, it also prevents new users from registering, requiring them to use ACC to request an account."
  • "There is no one currently assigned to this, so no one is taking it upon him to fix this at this moment. It's also not something that any team at the foundation is responsible for, so it's not likely to be prioritized from that end."
  • The only thing stopping us from having an audio captcha is that nobody's put the work into implementing it yet." --Source: Chief MediaWiki developer as of 2008
  • "So the question is why has work not been put aside to fix an issue of recognised high importance that will, 13 years after first being raised, resolve an issue that results in us discriminating against people who are (in many jurisdictions) a legally protected minority?"

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a very good point. After all, we do pride ourselves on our deep and abiding commitment to WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Moreover, a resolution passed by the Board, back in 2006 (and a month or so before the report mentioned above), notes that "The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics." As such, the Foundation is in a bind here, and Guy speaks well on this matter; it would be wise to listen. (On another note, why the devil does CAPTCHA exist? It's horrible; and why is it used on Wikipedia, again? Aren't there better alternatives now? And please do tell me if I'm mistaken.) —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 00:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Emphasis added; emphasis mine. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 00:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I could respond with several great alternative methods that foil spambots without discriminating against blind people but that would be a huge mistake. Even discussing it is a huge mistake. We don't have a "we don't know how to solve this" problem. We have a "for 13 years the WMF has refused to assign any manpower or budget to solving this" problem. Solve the real problem and solving the non-problem becomes easy. I would encourage anyone responding to this to focus on the real problem and not on the non-problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Guy Macon quoted from the phabricator page: It's also not something that any team at the foundation is responsible for. This is likely not to be true. I realise the post was likely referring to teams on the technical side, but... if there is a mandate under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 or subsequent legislation, then there is a team with responsibility at the WMF, its legal team (ping Interim General Counsel TSebro_(WMF)). There is also responsibility for legal compliance that goes to the CEO / ED (ping Katherine (WMF)) and ultimately, if management does not ensure compliance, to the Board (ping community trustees Doc James, Pundit and Raystorm). If putting into effect the excellent and appropriate 2006 non-discrimination principles stated by the Board or doing the right thing are not a sufficient motivators after such a long time, perhaps legal obligation / potential liability is a reason for action? I am assuming that everyone wants National Federation of the Blind v. WMF to remain a redlink, rather than becoming a sequel to National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp.? 13 years without solving an issue like this – and one the Chief Mediawiki Developer recognised as only needing people to do the necessary work (according to Guy's phabricator page quotes) – sounds indefensible. As Churchill would have said: "Action, this day." EdChem (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Certainly something that needs to be fixed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Doc James, then you should hire developers to work on it. Something the foundation has never prioritized. Ask VolkerE, he has been asking for years internally. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Agree, this is certainly more than an "English Wikipedia" challenge - and if the Board of Directors think this is important, let your CEO know. — xaosflux Talk 13:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
If the board directs the WMF to fix this, might I request that it be done openly and transparently? I know how developers and their managers think, and there is a strong tendency to work on something like this without telling anyone, throw the result over the wall, then get all upset when the users reject your solution. The right way to do this is to first decide on the requirements (for those who aren't software developers, "requirements" is a code word for "before we start, we need to decide what 'done' means and how we will determine whether we are done"), then let me and other volunteers with skills in this area criticize and improve the requirements. You have a great resource in the form of volunteers like me. It would be stupid to waste that free resource. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

mw:Extension:ConfirmEdit#ReCaptcha (NoCaptcha) is accessible, responding to browser headers for audio or screenreader-appropriate tasks. If sharing reader info with Google is unacceptable, alternatives are listed on the W3C wiki, where you can {{sofixit}} for everyone, not just Wikipedia. EllenCT (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, We don't have a "we don't know how to solve this" problem. We have a "for 13 years the WMF has refused to assign any manpower or budget to solving this" problem. Acting as if we have a "we don't know how to solve this" problem and discussing how to solve it is a huge mistake. I would ask everyone reading this to please not get sidetracked into a discussion that will not solve the real problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
No argument there. If everyone reading this would spend as much time as it takes to buy a $3 cup of coffee asking the Foundation to allow the blind to edit without creating an account or using a tactile screen-reader, imagine what we could accomplish. By the way, Guy, I've always admired your willingness to be critical of growing spending to approximately match donations. Did you know I agree with you there? I would rather the Foundation hire fewer people working on more important projects so that they can pay them a competitive rate and build a self-sustaining endowment sooner, than hire too many staff. I feel quite strongly that placing one of the superprotect proponents in a position of community trust showed a very substantial error, but a small one in the whole scheme of things, like Turkey and China, for example. EllenCT (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, Jimbo and Doc James, will the board be asking our CEO why this remains unfixed some time in the near future? Or will we be back here having this same conversation at 14 years and 15 years? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 06:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion we should double or triple the size of the community tech team. Per a number of people below appear to be lots of reasons why this needs to be fixed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Doc James: Please yes, a million times yes. This way things like the accessibility things would get done, as well as highly desired things like Article Alerts for more languages that apparently didn't get done for lack of resources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I am no fan of increased spending, but I strongly approve of doubling or tripling the size of the community tech team -- as long as at least half of the new hires are given the job of fixing boring bugs that have been around for years instead of working on huge new projects that are doomed to be rejected by the community. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
@Doc James: You also have my !vote (when is the new community wishlist going to be launched? I would be willing to add this as one of the 'meta wishes', lets see what the community thinks of this). Of course, this could also be (partially) solved by using the existing resources in other ways. I am not at all surprised that community members get pissed off at an unstoppable inflow of crap. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Somewhat related to this .. T6459. Of course, this conflicts with editor retention efforts. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I am a bit puzzled. What does the spam blacklist have to do with blind people not being able to register an account? Please forgive me if I am missing something obvious. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Do you know about the line, "Can't see the image? Request an account" on the account creation page? Have you discussed your concerns with anyone in the WikiBlind Wikimedians User Group? EllenCT (talk) 07:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: Hence the 'Somewhat' - inserting a 'new' external link by a 'new' editor results in a Captcha. The Captcha is part of our 'defense' there. Our defenses are the last thing that they care about. Now, for the Captcha I am actually surprised that after a 'you block the blind' they did not completely rip it out. But then, having a proper Captcha would improve a lot of 'defense' mechanisms, keeping out those much wanted new editors.
In majority the issue behind it is the same. Bug reports get completely ignored unless they actually break something (similarly, one bug that I reported that 'broke' the watchlist got repaired because of a totally unrelated upgrade of the interface). Who cares about the loss of an admin or a couple of blind people, with <insert fancy beta feature here> we attract/retain thousands of new editors. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Jimbo, Doc James, will the board be asking our CEO why this remains unfixed some time in the near future? Can we get this on the agenda for discussion? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
    (...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    (...still more crickets ...) --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Instead of complaining to Jimbo, who I imagine specialises in lectures and methodology, rather than code and technology, or even organisation any more, why don't you inform Jimbo, as you complain to Google Summer of Code, and others like this? You threaten with legality, but it's all money. Magic. That's so annoying. Coding is a language. People do it to learn. That's where software gizmos come from. Students. Teachers. This sort of stuff looks great on a resume.[34] ~ R.T.G 13:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Have received a number of questions / replies about this. One question is are we clear on a solution? Is the ask to provide a voice related CAPTCHA? Do we have a clear indication from those who need this technology regarding what solution they want to see? I am not clear on why proposing solutions was discouraged?
With respect to getting the solution built we have a number of options including a GoSC student, the wishlist, and directly from staff. First we need to be clear on what solution we are looking for. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion, the solution is to employ someone that knows about accessibility issues as a whole. CAPTCHA is unsuitable for many reasons and for many disabilities. For example, my disability means I can't always make out the letters. Unrelated to my disability, CAPTCHA picture tests often don't make sense to people outside the US - showing lots of cars and asking the user to pick out the 'taxi' isn't going to work for anyone that doesn't know that taxis come in yellow (ours are black, and a totally different shape). We could all say what would work for us as individuals or for a specific group/disability, but people are qualified to do this sort of thing for the benefit of most people with disabilities, not just specific groups, so please employ one of them. MarpoHarks (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Re "I am not clear on why proposing solutions was discouraged?" and "One question is are we clear on a solution?" we have been proposing solutions since February of 2006 and the problem is no closer to being solved. Proposing solutions is not working. Imagine for a moment that we were dealing with someone who who has a chronic medical condition that is normally easily treatable. What would be more effective; getting him in an examining room with a doctor who has been given the job of treating the patient, or two guys in a bar on the other side of town proposing and deciding on solutions to this medical problem, all without any actual contact with the patient or with anyone who can actually treat the condition?
That's the situation we are in now. You, as a board member, do not have the technical ability or authority to modify the Wikimedia software so that it no longer discriminates against a protected minority. You do, however, have the ability and authority to require someone at the WMF to answer the following questions:
  • What is the name of the WMF employee (or employees) who has been given the assignment of fixing this? Alternatively, when will that employee be named and by who?
  • What is the budget -- in other words how much does the WMF expect to spend on solving this? Alternatively, when will the budget be created, and by who?
  • What is the deadline -- in other words how long does the WMF expect it to take to solve this? Alternatively, when will the deadline be decided on, and who will make that decision?
  • Where will the software requirements be published, and how does the WMF propose that an independent third party can look at the results and verify whether the requirement were met?
Once we have a WMF employee who has been given the assignment of fixing this, an open conversation about possible solutions that includes that employee could be very productive. It isn't required, though. The politics of the WMF are such that any developer who tried such a stunt would most likely be fired. The way we normally do things around here is to have someone work on a problem in secret (possibly with "community surveys" but never an open discussion), come up with a solution, and then try to ram it down the community's throat. But that is a separate problem that we will not solve here, and one that doesn't need to be solved in order to solve our discriminating against the blind problem. All we need to do is to answer my four questions above. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
To go a step out of my depth, I'm not sure, but a few years ago when the dedicated toolserver went down, the in-wiki dev who worked on the reference templates. Didn't they retire only because, without a sufficient dedicated server to research the template codes they didn't feel challenged, but were otherwise the wizard to go to for stuff like this? Maybe I miss that, I forget exactly, and never participated the discussion. I think upon the retirement they left a green on black retro version of the main page (WP) as their userpage? Am I mistaken there? Was this not also the in-house wizard person to request such widgitery from? Well my apology if that's wrong but suggestions are good for this request, right?
"You should be the guy who owwns baseballl... All you need to doo... Is make a buck or twoo..." *cough!* ~ R.T.G 13:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: When you ask "What would be more effective; getting him in an examining room with a doctor who has been given the job of treating the patient, or two guys in a bar on the other side of town proposing and deciding on solutions to this medical problem, all without any actual contact with the patient or with anyone who can actually treat the condition?" it makes me wonder if you really support this project. What would be the best way to write an online encyclopedia? Hire qualified subject matter experts, writers, and editors, or start the "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit"? I think history has revealed the answer to that question. Can I suggest you open a discussion about this issue on [[WP:VPT}}? I am sure you will get some great and helpful suggestions. Bitter Oil (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
You appear to be confusing the separate concepts of "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit" with "the software that runs that encyclopedia -- software that only a select few can modify". You can make a copy of the MediaWiki software and modify it any way you wish, but your changes will not appear in the copy of Mediawiki that runs Wikipedia. That copy is tightly locked down and only a select few Wikimedia Foundation employees are allowed to modify it -- and even then only when their bosses tell them to.
Again I say, we don't have a "we need to talk about how we would solve this if we were magically able to change the software that we cannot change" problem. We have a "for 13 years the WMF -- the only people who can change the software -- has refused to assign any manpower or budget to solving this" problem. I don't know how I can make this any clearer. Talking about how to fix something that you are not allowed to fix is a colossal waste of time. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Most editors can't edit fully protected pages, but that doesn't stop them from discussing issues or making suggestions on talk pages. It seems to work pretty well. Bitter Oil (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Again you are confusing two fundamentally different things. We have volunteer administrators who are not only allowed to edit protected pages, but who get summoned when you use the proper template to suggest a change. In the case of fixing the Mediawiki software nobody who has permission to change the software will ever read your suggestion and, even if by some chance they did read your suggestion they would be fired if they changed the Wikimedia software without WMF management telling them to do so. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Jimbo, Doc James, is the board willing to ask our CEO to take whatever action is needed to fix this problem? Can we get this on the agenda of a future board meeting? It is OK to answer by saying that the board has decided not to act on this matter. That would be disappointing but at least I could stop asking. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is what the Board is meant to be doing. I mean, telling the CEO to take whatever action is needed to fix this problem seems way out of line. That isn't the Board's role. Bitter Oil (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Nonsense. As Wikimedia Foundation Board Handbook#Effective Board oversight clearly explains, one of their jobs are "Oversee compliance with legal obligations". The WMF has a legal obligation to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Also, I was addressing the two board members who read this page, not you. (Needless to say, informed comment by others are welcome, but responses that are just disagreement for the sake of being contrarian, not so much.) --Guy Macon (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I support your efforts to address this, but "Oversee compliance with legal obligations" means getting reports, not making demands to the CEO. I would be surprised if ADA compliance was not already being reported on. Bitter Oil (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. Please don't get me wrong when I try to correct you; it's just that I don't want anyone mislead as to the role of the board and the CEO. You are aware the the board hires and fires CEOs, right? And that, before firing a CEO they usually try to salvage the situation by trying to get the CEO to not do whatever they are about to fire them for doing, right? And that they usually try to get the CEO to do whatever they are about to fire them for not doing, right? Doesn't that sound a lot like like "making demands of the CEO" to you? Of course normally it doesn't become adversarial like that. The board gently asking "hey, would you please look into this problem that was reported 13 years ago?" combined with the fact that the board also decides how much to pay the CEO next year typically results in someone with the appropriate technical skills being assigned to fix the problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought we were trying to have a reasonable discussion. I will show myself out. Bitter Oil (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Yup. Thirteen years of leading this particular horse to water, and he hasn't taken a sip yet. I expect I will be back at all of the usual places at 14 years, unless someone, FSM forbid, forces the horse to drink out of a fire hose with a discrimination lawsuit that becomes a featured article in the New York Times. :(   --Guy Macon (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
We have someone who has taken on trying to solve this problem per the ticket.[35] They are a contractor with the WMF from what I understand. This is not an easy problem obviously, with a lot of balancing issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Did the WMF give this contractor the assignment of fixing this, or are they volunteering to fix it without being paid? If the latter. will WMF management either allow them to make changes to our software or assign someone who has the job of evaluating their solution and deciding whether to implement it?
Any proposed "solution" needs to include the name of an WMF employee (or contractor) who has been given the assignment of fixing this, a budget that says how much the WMF expects to spend on solving this, a deadline that say how long the WMF expects it to take to solve this, and a way for an independent third party to look at the results and verify whether the requirements were met. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
It's at the top right of the bug page Doc James linked, it gives a name and even a picture of the programmer, who wrote on the 15th of this month as he accepted the task, "I'm diving on this grenade until or unless someone else takes it over. I'm very interested in using our Captcha system for doing micro-curation tasks (both for visual and non-visual contributions), either for training machine-learning models, or for more heuristic one-off projects. I'll try to get more educated on the topic, and hopefully give more information in the coming weeks." If EvanProdromou manages to fix it, you've already succeeded, since before I stuck my oar in 2 weeks ago, best of luck, o/ ~ R.T.G 18:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Not trying to give you a hard time, but that does not answer the questions I asked. Has someone at the WMF assigned him this task or is he volunteering? If he has been assigned this task, what is the budget, what is the schedule, and what is the definition of "done"? If he is volunteering, will whatever solution he comes up with be a proposed solution, waiting (possibly for years) for someone at the WMF to either modify the software of give him permission to modify the software? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Have you tried contacting EvanProdromou? Bitter Oil (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Jimbo, Doc James, will the board be asking our CEO why this remains unfixed (no one assigned to fix it, no budget for fixing it, no schedule for fixing it)? Can we get this on the agenda for discussion? Or can we just announce that we are never going to fix it so I can stop asking? I really don't want to have this conversation at year 14 and year 15. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Interested in hearing Evan's response first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
      • He hasn't edited since 11 July, so you might be waiting for a while. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
        • @Guy Macon: Have you tried emailing Evan Prodromou? Doc James seems to be trying to help you, but it is starting to look like you're only here to whine. Bitter Oil (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
          • Please leave me alone. I don't want to have any interactions with you. Don't ping me again. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

Wishing Jimbo Wales a very happy birthday on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Happy Birthday!

Have a very happy birthday on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo Wales, i wish you a happy birthday. Best wishes.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Jai Gurudev

Sir, I have noticed that Jai Gurudev's Wikipedia page has been deleted by someone which will create controversial situation in India and you may suffer from this.

Sir, please see the user and take action against him and please revert it as soon as possible.

Do reply me soon.

Thanks

Edit2Text (talk) 12:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Edit2Text: I'm not Jim but uhhhh no I see no problem with the deletion of that page. "Will create [a] controversial situation in India"...

...why would it? This person is an un-elected candidate to Indian parliament if the AfD discussion is right.Jerry (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

this person has the India's largest followership and was the spiritual leader. 

 Edit2Text (talk) 09:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Problem in German Wikipedia

In DE.Wiki an old user wrote " zieh Leine du kranker Spacko" (take off leash you sick Spacko) to an innocent IP. There was no provokation or something else and not the old user gets banned, no the ip gets banned ?!?

The user Gretarsson is most of the time very rude and unpolite and no one dares to raise his voice. (Björn Hagemann is covering Gretarsson)

Version vom 8. August 2019, 04:34 Uhr (Bearbeiten) (rückgängig) Gretarsson (Diskussion | Beiträge) (Änderung 191142258 von 87.134.242.133 rückgängig gemacht; zieh Leine du kranker Spacko) Markierung: Rückgängigmachung Zum nächsten Versionsunterschied →

for 99% of the users this would result in a bann but some wrong pepole got too much power (just against the weak and just online)

Wikipedia:Auskunft&oldid=191142567 diff-Wikipedia:Vandalismusmeldung&diff=next&oldid=191145255

https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAuskunft&type=revision&diff=191142567&oldid=191161113 2003:6:11B1:DB41:989C:FB34:CFF5:25C0 (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Some troll-IP tried to misuse the information disk anf got a wee bit rude response for that. Rhe user got a slap on the wrist, and that'S it, nothing to talk about. Now it seems they are forum shopping for their trolling. Should this here simply be deleted or ignored? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I can see that once again the administration is bursting with courage and zest for action when it comes to putting well-networked problem users in their place. Like Kopilot,Gretarsson etc... 2003:6:13D9:E485:F89B:D65C:5197:5515 (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Well known problem IPs, that like to harass quality content providers like Kopilot, Gretarson etc., that even get mobbed on external trolling pages like wikihausen you mean? Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

"quality content" Calling me a sick piece of shit.. But in a second run he got some punishment (even tough its just one day ban but better than nothing and ok) Can be removed 2003:6:13D9:E485:F89B:D65C:5197:5515 (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

So you got what you wanted, because your trolling was all about baiting and nothing else. There's a Sperrprüfung now, and I hope he will get just a slap on the wrist for his really understandable short outbreak of incivility towards a destructive troll like you. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 07:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Crowdsourcing for different purposes

The existence of Wikipedia made known to the world that crowdsourcing is magnificently productive when used for the purpose of contributing content.

But crowdsourcing also gets used for policing and discipline. When that happens, cliques of bullies form and take control and run kangaroo courts. They forbid disagreement with the party line, or even discussion of or questions about the party line, and the depths of dishonesty among such cliques when they deny that that is happening is probably not exceeded by the mafia.

Such is the nature of the administrators' noticeboards on Wikipedia. Such is also the nature of parallel activities on various sorts of other sites.

(The fact that some good things also happen on such boards is not an occasion to qualify any of the above.)

This is a lawsuit waiting to happen, and if Wikipedia loses such a suit, the plaintiffs will be entitled to Wikipedia's gratitude. But obviously the less expensive (not only in terms of money and time and sweat and people's feelings) course of events would be if the problems could be fixed in time to avert such a heavy-handed approach.

Fixing this problem would be a major advance in the same way in which the existence of crowdsourced resources was itself a major advance. Possibly some law firm might work on this on a pro-bono basis for the glory of winning such an important case. Shopping around for that is not something I've thought about much yet. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

What is an acceptable and civil euphemism for "utter horseshit"? I would like to use that euphemism to describe this editor's behavior so that I am not asked again to stay off Jimbo's talk page. The one thing I know for sure is that this post comes very, very close to violating No legal threats, which is a blockable offense. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
@Cullen328: "disruptive," or, if you wish to be particularly civil, "tendentious." EllenCT (talk) 10:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Redux: Michael Hardy still isn't getting his way, and it's everybody else's fault but his own. Guy (Help!) 16:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The admin with over 200,000 edits is not "making a legal threat" or doing anything more than many others have pointed out over the years. Denigrating such an admin is not very utile. In short, the person raises issues, though possibly less diplomatically than some would like, but certainly not in violation of any policies that I can find. Collect (talk) 12:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Right! It is not legal threat to point out the possible consequence of our policies, when there actually is such a problem, and it is not an attempt to stifle discussion . And there is a problem. The immunity of service providers under the US CDA is currently under attack because of the irresponsible and malicious use of some of the channels by people who do pose a real and present danger, and we need to be sure that our use of these immunities is in a responsible manner.
I think there is an implicit understanding for anyone contributing to our site that they will be treatedin a fair manner.--that though they acknowledge the need to obey our rules, they expect challenges to their activities to be treated in accordance with fundamental fairness and reasonable procedure--that though we may have the technical ability to be irrational and arbitrary, that we will proceed according to the general principles of dispute resolution in a civilized society. We are not a horde of barbarians operating under mob rule, nor a legion operating under dictatorial power. At present, ANB, ANI. AE show the characteristics of both, where individuals are encouraged to act unilaterally in accordance with thier private views and prejudices, and whoever is prepared to be the most aggressive has the advantage. It is very easy not just to drive off newcomers who just need sympath y and education, but experienced editors who take unpopular positions.
The only two counters to this are arb com and the foundation. Arb com (based on my own experience there) has the virtue of at least taking a vote, but the disadvantage of preferring to operate in secret even when unnecessary, of its disputes being invisible, of being almost exclusively composed of the most rule-bound wikipedians, and of having a general tendency to do as little as possible--witness the many attempts of solution of major disputes that result in saying very little, and leaving the actual work of deciding who merits sanctions to the whim of whoever is eager to operate in the harshest manner. The WMF is increasingly moving in the direction of rejecting the principles of elementary equity, by accepting evidence kept secret not only from the accused but from the judges, of having no process for appeals, and of being composed of people not responsible in any manner to the community they claim to be acting for. It has typically proven convenient to despots to act in this manner, and it is also the typical manner of operation of corporations, who declaredly act for their own short term benefit and not for the benefit of either the public ot their participants.
We need a reorientation. WP is removing people on the basis of their being inconvenient, or of taking minority positions. It does need to remove those who are actually disruptive, but it has in recent years stretched the definition of disruptive to absurd lengths, meaning anyone one who continues to disagree with a temporary majority. In an open organization, such as we have always at least tried to be, disagreement is tolerated regardless of the inefficiency. If we actually wish to operate by consensus, we must accept that consensus is not going to be an efficient process, and inherently means tolerating those whom one thinks are altogether in error.
Our true purpose--and I think and hope it was the original purposse of you and the others who started this project -- is not to build a free open -content encyclopedia. It is to demonstrate that ordinary people are capable of working in a reasonably harmonious fashion to construct something very complicated and far-reaching of permanent global importance, and to do this better than conventional top-down organizations. Organizations ossify with age. It takes work to keep them flexible and true to their original purpose. DGG ( talk ) 08:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

selective access to "hate speech"

Jimbo, I have to wonder if its ok for all the politicians and media people to read and analyse the "manifesto"s of mass killers but not ok for the citizenry at large to read the same material. I really can not seem to form a firm opinion one way or the other. Do you have an opinion? A Wikipedia aspect is what do we do when RS material is published but later erased from the RS website...as if it never existed? Perhaps we have a moral responsibility to also remove inciteful and hateful rhetoric . I don't know but I think its an important topic. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Censoring these sorts of hate speech is actually making things worse. The reason why extremists hang out on sites such as 8chan is because the offensive materials posted there makes people who are not extremists stay out of such venues. This makes sites such as 8chan breeding grounds where extremists become ever more extremists. The best thing we can all do is to visit such extremist sites like 8chan and to give our feedback. This won't change minds of the extremist regulars there, but we need to consider all the invisible lurkers who are not yet extremists, who would see that there exists a debunking of the extremist materials posted there. The more you get insulted by the regulars for daring to speak out, the better because the people who only read the postings can then see that the regulars don't have a good answer to your argument. What unfortunately tends to happen is that we only take into account the reactions of the people who actually post and then it looks like the effort had zero impact. That's why people tend to stay away from such sites and it's this attitude that caused the problem in the first place. Count Iblis (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
That's an interesting idea. Watering down the potency of the hate with well reasoned comments from more moderate and peaceful voices.
I agree that by forcing them into a closet only serves to reinforce their "us versus them" mentality.
Its also bizarre and annoying (to me at least) to have news people quoting from, summarizing, and making a big deal out of something they get to read in its entirety but most people don't. However, maybe the "greater good" aspect (of not spreading the words of the killer) they seem to be inferring is a valid argument? Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I guess this is referring to the alleged shooter's manifesto in the 2019 El Paso shooting. It isn't hard to find online, but it isn't currently given as a source in the article. It is pretty dreary stuff about race and remarkably similar to the alleged shooter's manifesto in the Christchurch mosque shootings, which isn't linked in full from the article either. There are signs that web companies are becoming worried about hosting this type of material in case it encourages wack jobs to do something similar.[36] Since it is a form of WP:PRIMARY material, it is best to rely on coverage from secondary sources. Also, people in some countries might be prosecuted for downloading this type of material.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
The El Paso shooter solely blames Hispanics, the Christchurch shooter solely blames Muslims, and editors on white genocide conspiracy theory are at present trying to imply in its initial paragraph that all such conspiracists solely blame Jews. I am not making this up. EllenCT (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I read it. It has a lot about himself and his views but virtually zero empathy or concern at all about his upcoming victims or their families. I've been wondering if the youngest generations have as much human empathy as the older ones, and specifically whether extensive computer time, including social media and all the memes, provides a shallow and hollow substitute for traditional human empathy among and between people and that the time and attention the computers/phones consume leaves less time and attention for empathy to be nurtured and developed within people? If so, then Count Iblis's suggestion of engagement might provide a path for normal people (like all of us :)) to perhaps transfer or teach, by the example of the empathy within our comments, some examples of human empathy into the minds of those who have none because they just keep bouncing anger and closed mindedness off of each other. EllenCT, I noticed that too. I thought it was just 1 of my own personal observations, but you see it too. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
This seems like an exceptionally obvious example of the Streisand effect. Surely there will be more people reading the manifesto now than if it could be linked to in the news like any other (non-illegal) document on which they are reporting. The idea that people reading this will automatically become radicalized and therefore want to do the same thing as the shooter is absurd IMO. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Unlike the much lengthier and heavily proselytizing Christchurch manifesto, which outright admitted to deliberate trolling and hyperbole, there is every indication that the El Paso manifesto is entirely sincere and forthright, and as such, and because it makes no attempts at the kind of radicalizing persuasion in its four pages that you see in terror groups' recruiting, it ought to be studied, and there is no reason to censor it. Plenty of immigration scholars and economists have already countered it's primary, straightforward claims in op-eds, and because it lays them bare without rhetorical flourish or subterfuge, it's worthy as a teachable moment. I'm sure Nocturnalnow will be interested in its correspondences to administration and mass media sources. EllenCT (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
@Wnt: You usually have something to say about this kind of thing. Any thoughts? Bitter Oil (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Don't bait him into anything. He would favor linkage on a grownups-have-a-right-to-know basis, of course, we know that. Just leave it there. See Count Iblis above for a fuller statement of the idea. Carrite (talk) 09:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Wnt has contributed enough insight already and, fortunately, digital discussions last forever. He might just want a break from the heel nippers. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Alternative hypothesis: they hang out on 8chan because what they say is so abhorrent that it gets them booted from anywhere else in record time. I would fall back to the Wikipedia trifecta for sourcing: reliable, independent, secondary. Link to commentary on the hate-screeds (manifesto my arse) and leave it at that. We don't offer the reader anything by sending them to the cesspit to look at the turds for themselves. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
8chan is no longer on the clearnet, because no mainstream web host wants to risk the bad publicity of a Christchurch or El Paso incident. It doesn't seem to available via Tor (anonymity network) at the moment either.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Imo, the real pisser here is the selectivity of for whom its ok to read this crap or even to know the name of the killers. Its getting really big brotherish, imo, however, could be our society is getting so dominated by easily impressionable and malleable and other types of stupid people that this kind of selectivity has merit, but then we see what happens when the experts like that what's his name puppet goes in front of the U.N. with some satellite photos supposedly showing a pile of WMDs, so we sure as hell can't trust the people at the top to be guardians of information, so who can we trust? Don Lemon? or the various Fox Trots? I dunno, that old expression about freedoms of speech and press being like muscles, use'em or lose'em rings true to me at this moment.
We still have democracies so if the people want to allow the super intellects and champions of morality at CNN and Fox and in government positions to screen even more of the news and other info being allowed to filter down to the working stiffs, then so be it. Sheep do get fleeced, that's the one multi-generational fact. Btw, why is Tony Blair still allowed to give public speeches, wasn't his hate speech against Saddam even more deadly? Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Question Time

If you were to die, what would happen to Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikia? GOLDIEM J (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The Foundation has been an independent nonprofit organization since 2003, just as Wikia is a private stock corporation. The Foundation's bylaws specify that the Founder's Seat on the Board of Trustees would cease to exist, and Jimbo's heirs would inherit his Wikia stock. The missiles in the submarine fleet docked beneath the hollowed volcano lair off the coast of Malta are a different story; let's just say you had better not be vacationing in Gibraltar when Jimbo kicks the bucket. EllenCT (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Gibraltar? Where is Gibraltar? Jeesh, I wish Wikipedia had better coverage of the topic... Carrite (talk) 03:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@Carrite: Well, that wasnt provided by themselves, anyway  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 10:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
What does this have to do with missiles and submarines? Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 10:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I just absolutely LOVE that no one atted me to notify me, guys¯\_(ツ)_/¯ GOLDIEM J (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Diversity Working Group calls for the end of Wikipedia's availability as freely and openly licensed

Just going to leave this here. Jimbo, how does this square with your clear stance? From meta:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups/Diversity/Recommendations/9:

  • "For an article in which an indigenous historian/scholar has provided “authoritative” input and marked with distribute only through GNU, it would be semi- or fully-protected from drive by editing for those sections"
  • "Likewise, photographs, which are marked ND (No derivative works) or NC (No commercial works) could be made available for use"
  • "All change has negative connotations to some members of the community"
  • "The current version of the Terms of Use does not reflect the present reality"

I don't know which I think is worse, this or #"The classic notion of an encyclopaedia and 'universal knowledge' needs to be discarded".. BethNaught (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Apparently "Multiple studies have determined that extant movement policies don’t just reflect the systemic biases, they make biases against marginalized communities worse, in effect, re-colonizing and oppressing diverse knowledge." If you contribute to Wikipedia then you agree to the Terms of Use, which include freely licensing the work and allowing other people to modify it. If you don't like the Terms of Use, don't contribute. It's as simple as that.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Some perfectly reasonable and virtuous open source projects that ought to be done somewhere, are best done elsewhere than on WP. One example of this is original research. it is excellent for original research, and the first written transcription of traditional knowledge, do be freely available on the web, and it is also reasonable for it to be protected from editing and the possible corruption. But that is the very antithesis of a crowd sourced freely editable encyclopedia, which relies on continual revision. Various people in the past--mainly scholars--have protested that WP is hostile to their work, because it provides them no authorial integrity. They're perfectly right--WP is not the appropriate place for creative or scientific work which depends upon the maintenance of the author's work intact as they wrote it. Literature and scholarship could not proceed otherwise. The same is true for traditional knowledge: it too deserves preservation in a integral and incorruptible form. Therefore it too needs to be elsewhere than on WP. And the WMF should not be operating a project, even if differently named, for it would difficult to sufficiently distinguish it from WP; other organizations might do it with less confusion. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
On top of that, saying "I am oppressed and a victim" is a very poor reason for banning other people from altering something that you have written on Wikipedia. You can see what a can of worms this would open up.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, just as there is a place--apart from WP and the WMF for the publication of original research, there is a place for advocacy--similarly apart from WP and the WMF. I hope all of us want to help those advocating against oppression, but the only way we can do it on WP is to maintain true NPOV where all can find information Successful action must build on accurate knowledge, not on the partial knowledge produced by even the most well-intentioned bias. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • You all do realize that a list of brainstormed ideas is not the same thing as policy, right? When people are brainstorming ideas, those ideas do not become policy merely because they wrote them down somewhere. There's nothing to object to here, because there's no reason to believe that anything is likely to happen to these meeting minutes. It's just a record of ideas people have had. Having ideas is not the same as setting policy. --Jayron32 14:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
    Jayron32, you do realize that recommendations from working groups which will supposedly lead the entire Wikimedia towards fulfilling some Strategy2030 (accepted by BoT) and has a timespan of one month to be commented upon, exceeds the status of meeting minutes, right? ∯WBGconverse 14:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
    Yeah - we seem to have some people over-interpreting the recommendations, and also some under-interpreting them. Certainly, those of us involved in the strategy working groups got involved on the basis that the eventual set of recommendations would largely be adopted by the WMF Board, and other movement bodies. Which is not the same thing as every recommendation then being imposed by the WMF on every project and community (let alone every *draft* recommendation being agreed without debate or without changing in response to feedback). But equally, they're not just braindumps of ideas that are widely expected to be ignored. The Land (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Please understand that these working groups are putting forward proposals and, it seems in at least one case, proposed changes to the Terms of Use. It's good to get a discussion going, but I don't think the tone of the discussion should be "The WMF could never participate in this" or "If you don't like the current ToU, get lost." Proposals should be discussed civilly.

The WMF does participate in things where editing is not allowed in some ways, e.g. on Wikipedia we are not allowed to edit somebody else's quote (if that person did not say or write the new quote). I'm sure Wikisource has similar rules. As far as allowing "original research", it should be clear that there are not always clear borders defining OR. We have a perfectly valid exception on en:WP saying approx. "Including 1+1=2 is not original research." This comes up in photography quite a lot. If you go to a specific address and geo coordinates to photograph a historic building, you have to be aware that addresses can be renumbered, streets can be renamed or even moved or a new street can be built right in front of the building you want to photograph, "official coordinates" are sometimes wrong, and buildings themselves can be moved. Thus the "original research" of a photographer concluding that "The house across the street is the one I need to photograph," is commonly accepted and even required in many cases.

So we can discuss and even approve new cases where "do not edit this" and "OR" are allowed. The main case I believe is being suggested by the working groups is collecting oral histories in areas where there have not been reliable sources in the Western sense in the past, e.g. no local newspapers, publishing houses, etc. (I haven't been involved with the working groups, so don't know for sure) I do think the WMF can get involved in starting up oral history collections and training the recorders of such history where they are needed. I do think they should partner with other institutions, e.g. universities or other foundations, on most of this, and eventually spin-off any of their involvement. If you look at the proposals in this light, I'm sure you can see that they do not portend the "end of Wikipedia as we know it". I'll ask that folks discuss these proposals more in this light, rather than as an existential threat to Wikipedia. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I mean, these proposals are going nowhere so it seems a bit silly to argue about them but a few would be “the end of Wikipedia as we know it.” One of the proposals would lock the contributions of an “authoritative” editor of a disadvantaged population under a different license. That’s a can of worms WP isn’t capable of dealing with. Who decides whose “authoritative” to that degree? Where I do agree is that the WMF’s money is far better spent, and more in the spirit of its supposed mission, in the scanning of rare documents and the recording of oral histories so that they are preserved and more accessible to academics. That’s the type of activism the WMF should get behind. Even that proposal screws up by saying that such primary sources could then be used by editors as sources for articles. The everyday fight against OR and SYNTH is hard enough already. Capeo (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The very first recorded edits by the very first recorded Wikipedia editor!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Office.bomis.com

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Obligatory Rogers: “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." Capeo (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia used to be WikiPedia Count Iblis (talk) 01:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
But why did everyone's username have a .com back then? Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 01:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Nigos, I think that's an unregistered edit. Many very old edits have domain names instead of the username. —Kusma (t·c) 10:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Ah... ok. So they didn't record IP addresses back then. Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 11:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
For the record, these are the earliest edits that have been found, but not the earliest edits. In the early days of Usemod wiki, I did a lot of deleting things *on the hard drive* (as this was the only way to really do that). Those will never be found of course. The first words, soon deleted, were "Hello, World!"--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Obvious username violation, but since it hasn't edited in a while, it can stay unblocked for now. /sarc Someguy1221 (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk-pages

I've noted lots of talk-page stuff has been deleted (or moved ?). Is this a new general policy ? I believe the use of talk-page to be imperative for our general quality and in the long run. Also I think the large templates on what to do, classifications etc, should be located at the bottom of the talk-pages. It's easy to repeat something already discussed. But it's the first issue mainly. Thanks Boeing720 (talk) 06:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Boeing720, I was wondering whether I should address this by Drmies and this by Jehochman .
I actually do think Katherine Maher's comment concerning her feeling of "awkwardness" in the quite flattering published article about herself, which she participated in, was something of possibly profound importance in relation to the recent commotion here between the community and WMF as well as the direction in which she may be ( in extreme good faith, mind you ) moving Wikipedia and I wanted to see what Jimbo has to say about it.
I was shocked to see Drmies AND Jehochman unilaterally remove the topic, which I assure was brought up by me in good -faith also, and perhaps even more surprised to have those deletions accompanied by a block threat towards me.
I complied with their wishes because as far as I know this is another 1 of the new normal in our overall society, but it has not been sitting well with me over night in the context of the overall health of this project going forward. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I'd say that I don't agree with the removal of the question by Drmies and Jehochman, but I also find the question to be pretty trivial and silly. I've done a lot of travel, and a lot of random bumping into people, and it's not at all uncommon that wondering what to wear and when and feeling awkward if I get it wrong is a part of that life. I fail to see why anyone would consider this some kind of "profound" issue. It's a casual human interest piece about what her life is like.
I'm on my way to Wikimania right now. I just packed at home and at first I was relieved that I'm going somewhere that it is perfectly normal and ok for me to wear t-shirts every day. I've got a Global Goals one, because that's the theme. Then just as I was closing my suitcase, I suddenly remembered that I have to do a couple of television interviews, and a magazine one, and I wasn't sure what I should wear, so I packed a button down shirt and a nice jacket. If that raises profound questions about the future of the project, for the life of me I can't see what they are.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Glad you complied. Your comment was not simply some citation; you interpreted her comments, in a very unfriendly and BLP-violating way. As for "the way forward"--you've made 1047 edits to this page, and a little over 500 in mainspace. Your comments on Talk:Huma_Abedin are all over the place and show a lack of understanding of RS and of the BLP. Elsewhere you place forum posts (and here, on the same day). I wonder if you are on some kind of vendetta against Jody Wilson-Raybould (see last week's BLP violation), and that you hate on Katherine Maher frequently is clear as well. Sorry, what was the "new normal" you were talking about? Drmies (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Mr. Wales, I consider twisting someone's words to be a BLP violation, and now that I've looked over the editor's other comments over the years, there's just a whiff of sexism, and I detest that. It's bad enough already that women are judged by their clothes much more than men are; I find it hard to imagine you making a similar comment and Nocturnalnow or whoever jumping on it to draw some crazy inferences. I mean, "Wales felt self-conscious about wearing his Auburn shirt when accidentally running into Putin, and so he must be in cahoots with the Russians". Drmies (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, Jimbo. I understand now how that feeling of awkwardness about how one is dressed when traveling might occur. My question was maybe silly and I, in retrospect, should have certainly left out my attempt at sarcastic humour about "an extension of U.S. foreign policy", but my thought process was an attempt to identify why many comments in forums, especially with the Fram issue, has been along the lines of WMF dismissing the concerns of editors and even looking down upon the community.
So, I interpreted, and now I see I may have misinterpreted, Maher's concern about what "State" people thought about her traveling attire as perhaps an indicator of a hierarchical mentality; i.e. being deferential to the status of U.S. Gov. officials. Had I been correct in that interpretation then I do think that could be profound in terms of explaining any treatment by WMF of the community in ways that some in the community interpret/interpreted as dismissive, condescending etc. because a hierarchical mentality is always aware of people either being above, equal or below in importance. And to conclude that train of thought, I believe ( could be wrong ) that the essence and structure of Wikipedia is that of non-hierarchical equality.
I absolutely hold no ill will towards her nor anyone else associated with Wikipedia in any way. This is a unequivocally fantastic encyclopedia. Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Context is everything. The editor was continuing a past pattern. I note they have a Checkuser block, and early edit history suggesting they are a recycled account, some not great interactions along the way and nine of their most recent main space edits were deleted for copyvio. Jimmy, if you want us to control harassment and make Wikipedia feel safe for all contributors, please don’t undermine us when we apply a bit of clue to do what's needed. Jehochman Talk 18:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I undermined you. I disagreed that this particular instance was correct. Disagreement is not disparagement for the excellent work that you do.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the compliment. Nevertheless, if there's a strange-looking redaction of content, please ask why before forming an opinion. Yes, I know your preference is to leave all comments, which is fine if you're the target. However, we can't let this page become a free fire zone where editor A comes to talk about editor B inappropriately. My sensors are tuned to be more sensitive when B is a member of an under-represented population on Wikipedia. Please let me know if I am suffering from some sort of cognitive bias. Jehochman Talk 13:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, Katherine is the CEO. So while I consider the question to be (being diplomatic) silly, it seems well within the bounds of legitimate silly questions. I do agree with you - even if this page is a bit more "open" than most by my personal preference - it isn't a page for attacking other editors, etc.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Ok. For Wikipedia officials, I will dial back enforcement somewhat since they are assumed to be experts at handing "silly" comments. Jehochman Talk 16:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
It is kind of amazing that Nocturnalnow hasn't been blocked yet per WP:NOTHERE. --JBL (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Shh. Don’t tell anybody but blocking isn’t all that effective. Sometimes it’s better to let the user continue with their account and keep an eye on them to mitigate any problems. If you block and they get a new account it can be a worse outcome. Jehochman Talk 18:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, sure, but we're talking about someone whose last 50 edits to mainspace happened over the course of 16 months, with less than 600 total over about 5 years -- it's all just brain-rot posted here. --JBL (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
JBL's accusation above is inaccurate. I know I've put in a lot of effort over many years with a lot of, imo, constructive edits, just like the one on ASAP Rocky a few weeks ago, which was accompanied by a friendly discussion. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
You're best reply is to make the accusations be inaccurate by constantly striving to be a better editor. You have a chance to learn and improve, regardless of any water under the bridge. Nobody is born a brilliant writer. Jehochman Talk 22:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
No, you're both "talking about someone", i.e., talking about me. I'm talking about the WMF/Community relationship. Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
My question was not related to any specific talk-page. And it was not about possible gossip. I really think those huge templates on what to do , classification of article etc, should be put at the bottom of the talk-page. And all serious (=99% I surmize) discussions should be stored. (Unless for issues of storage space). Many are archived, but I think it has become more and more common that single contributors simply deletes serious discussions. I personally would prefer a certain time limit and a certain space limit (and ended discussions / part of discussions) and thereafter to be preserved in the archives. After having had a brief look at this section, I fear the discussion related to mu question has derailed. But I still think it may be worth saving. My main point is, talk-pages in general, ensures a high quality. Boeing720 (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The 1619 Project

Hey y'all--while Mr. Wales is living it up in Stockholm, maybe some of you can help me turn this stub into a real article that we can get on the front page. I am just a homemaker and don't have access to fancy publications like this one, or even the official website of the project. Plus, I really should be making desert right now and empty and reload the dishwasher. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Make forest, not desert Usedtobecool ✉ ✨ 01:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
As an amateur geologist, I love desert! However, I think your focus should be on trying to craft a good article rather than being concerned about the "front page". Finney1234 (talk) 01:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Finney1234, I didn't even know about this subject before it was posted here. The project seems important, and seems a worthwhile idea to try and get it to the main page where it can get exposure. They asked for help with the article, not advice on what their priorities should be. Do you have any idea how many good and better than good articles Drmies has under their belt? Usedtobecool ✉ ✨ 05:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

notability about a company notable only for its product

In an ongoing AFD you participated in three days ago[37] one editor is insisting that the reviews are about the product not the company by the same name, and that since the article is about the company it should be deleted. There are articles for companies that are deleted all the time because, unlike individuals, they don't inherit notability from their creations. Do you believe this should change? There are production companies that make numerous things that are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, but still get deleted since no one reviews them, just their works. Also if people notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles create their own company and produce works which are notable enough to have their own articles, shouldn't that production company have an article, even if no media writes about it just about the creative people and their work? Dream Focus 18:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I think in that particular example, the company is notable as well as the product. I don't think notability is "inherited" but the notability of a product certainly does count as a factor in my mind towards the notability of the company.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Re the above thread regarding "The classic notion of an encyclopaedia and 'universal knowledge' needs to be discarded"

I don't want to pollute the serious and erudite discussion at "The classic notion of an encyclopaedia and 'universal knowledge' needs to be discarded" thread above -- it's above the pay grade of a mook like me -- so I'll just lay this out here: the language and charts and all remind me of the kind of meetings where:

  • Some suit is justifying his salary by blathering about replanning the company as a confederation of teammates or what have you.
  • By 10:30 I am writing anagrams of "The suit is blathering" ("His utter blase thing"?) and praying for lunch.
  • At some point, someone will say "We should leverage our synergy to create a new paradigm", which wins the game.
  • Nothing will come of it.

So I wouldn't worry about it.

A lot of people like the Wikipedia, so out in the real world people are digging into their pockets and giving money to the Foundation instead of the Wildlife Conservation Society or Doctors Without Borders. (Sure, it's not a 1-to-1 correspondence because individual small donations mostly don't work like that, but neither is there no correspondance). I believe these donors think they are helping to keep the servers running, not paying for stuff like this. So, is not excellent IMO. Put the money in the trust fund. You never know when a rainy day will come. Herostratus (talk) 06:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Herostratus: what is your opinion of the 2016 Strategy Process recommendations? Do you think there is any chance that the Foundation will ever take any action to implement any of those? EllenCT (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Right, also, with the internet and skype, I think its ridiculously wasteful for donors dollars to be going on WMF employees doing a lot of flying and staying in hotels. Its insane from any practical standard and insulting to the concept of fiscal responsibility. Reminds me of an old out-dated term of the 50s; Jet set. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
@Ellen, I don't have an opinion, and probably not. @Nocturnalnow, well, I mean, use of resources expands to meet the available resources. Whether its racoon meat or money or whatever. That is how human beings tend to do. I'm not too surprised or worried about it, although it is kind of mediocre, particularly for a charity. Given our level of income, I'd be surprised if there weren't people flying around and staying in nice hotels in exotic cities and putting on a suit and giving PowerPoint presentations. All these are, after all, enjoyable (to a lot of people), and it's important for people to enjoy their lives, I guess.
If people want to give money to the Foundation, you can't really stop them. So I mean what then is the Foundation supposed to do if they then have a plethora of funds beyond current needs? Give the money back? Buy some potato farms? Sponsor an expedition to Mars? (They could stop soliciting donations, but after all the donor-charity relationship helps bond the general public to us emotionally, so, not sure if that would be a good idea or not.) Anyway... it's all OK. Mediocre, but OK. Herostratus (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
They could certainly fund a lot more unpaid volunteers to attend face-to-face meetings in the SF office where such conferences are highly conducive to improving the encyclopedia's content and management and to remind the WMF that the staff are the servants of the project and that the communities are not the scullery maids of the employees . One year's salary of the newest addition to the senior staff list would double the scholarships to a Wikimania - for example. The WMF totally, deliberately, and irresponsibly ignores the fact that the unpaid content contributions and curation generate the donations that pay the salaries and keep WMF staff in the air and luxury hotels for 200 days a year and sending nearly 100 of them to Wikimania every year. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_236&oldid=1143087226"