User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

BLP case

Jimbo, could I ask you to have a look at Talk:Tahir Abbas? It's a BLP that contains personally damaging information, based on a single secondary source from two years ago that the publisher recently removed from their website following lengthy legal action by the BLP subject. Editors at the article insist that without a formally published retraction, the original article, although no longer available online, is still a reliable source, and inclusion of the material is fully in line with WP:BLP and WP:DUE. The material based on the source makes up about 25% of the entire BLP. Best, --JN466 13:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

How many different venues are you going to use to pursue this? You got no traction at BLPN -- the one editor who seemed to support your approach (Bbb23) changed his mind (deciding to support inclusion) when he read the actual article. Even Scott MacDonald didn't see fit to get involved. In any event this looks to me like a clear instance of canvassing, and even though I have explicitly defended you against others' worries that you might not be approaching this one in good faith, I'm done with that now. For those who might take an interest -- a key principle here is WP:SOURCEACCESS: sources do not have to be available online, and it is indeed the case that the article has not been retracted. Furthermore the material is not based on a single source, we also have the fact that the journal Citizenship Studies retracted one of Abbas's articles because it contained plagiarism. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

You can only use SOURCEACCESS as an argument if you are citing the paper source - not when citing an online source that is no longer available.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

What? I read the paper source originally. I am citing a paper source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Is the source verifiable now that it's not online? We would have a very different encyclopedia if people could just say "I read it somewhere." Even though I'm not doubting you did. Anyway I'll jump on over to the article discussion since that is where this all should be sorted out :) Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 21:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

No opinion (yet?) on whether the information should be included, but I think you misread the previous post. The best source for the claim appears to be an article in Times Higher Education, a high-quality weekly print magazine with an excellent reach. (To judge from my experience, it seems to be available in the social rooms of all British university departments.) The article was also available on the THE website, but it appears that it has been pulled specifically, for reasons unknown. Hans Adler 22:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It was removed as part of a settlement of a defamation claim. --JN466 16:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

What is the evidence for this statement, Jayen? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The subject's lawyers advised OTRS of the court case several months ago, including claim number, and asked that his biography be deleted. That request appears to have been refused at the time because the THE article was considered a reliable source. Since then, several editors (as well as OTRS) have seen the recent letter from TSL Education stating, to whomever it may concern, that the article has now been removed from the Times Higher Education website. You have stated that the article is still accessible in Factiva and Nexis, and that this constitutes evidence it has not been properly retracted. I propose we wait a few days, and see if Factiva and Nexis will continue to host it. If they remove it too, I'd consider the source dead for our purposes. --JN466 01:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand. The persistence of the article on Factiva and Nexis is not evidence it has not been properly retracted. The question of retraction is addressed by whether there has been a retraction. We know what a retraction looks like -- it is what Citizenship Studies did with Abbas's own article. There is no retraction of the THE article. As for your proposed test -- are you proposing that if it remains on either Factiva or Nexis that you'll consider it usable? That would be progress... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Surely, it is irrelevant whether it has been properly retracted. As a matter of ethical judgment, we should not publish potentially defamatory material unless we have very good reason and are very sure of its truth. If we have reason to believe that the publisher of a source we are using no longer upholds the claim, we should not use it.--Boson (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this as a general principle. I haven't yet studied the individual case well enough to form a particular opinion, but if the original source has removed the article from their website, that's a perfectly good reason not to use that source anymore - if the publisher won't stand by it, we shouldn't rely on it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not the only source for the claim; we can be quite sure, via the other source, that Abbas plagiarized in writing his article that appeared in Citizenship Studies. No-one is disputing this: Abbas himself apologized for it in the notice published by the journal. We are "very sure of its truth." And, it's not that the Times Higher Education article in question has not been "properly retracted". What has become clear at the article talk page is that it hasn't been retracted at all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that whether there has been "a retraction"--that is, whether there is a statement specifically stating 'we retract this article'--should not be a requirement. If the site removes the article for legal reasons, we should treat it as retracted, even if they did not follow all the steps (such as publishing an explicit retraction statement) that you think are necessary to retract an article. Ken Arromdee (talk) 04:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, from personal experience, I can say that I have seen sources print things about me that were false and defamatory and upon my complaint, they merely removed it from the web rather than printing a retraction in the paper edition. In some cases, the false information remains on the web today (thankfully, obscurely) in archives of syndicators. I assume it will often remain in paid archives as well. It's not reasonable to say "Wikipedia will stand by the story unless there is a published retraction" because that just isn't how things work in the real world. What happens when someone is libeled is that sometimes because a lawsuit would be expensive and bring more publicity to the lie (see: Barbara Streisand effect), the victim will often just accept the removal from the main website as taking care of 99% of the problem. Wikipedia can't ethically continue to publish what is very likely false information in such cases.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

And to keep this from resurfacing via a new contributor, it might be a good idea to add a "commented out" section in the article, explaining this. A section in the Talk page is also useful, but some of these pages are so active such a discussion ends up in the archives where it's not noticed, particularly by new contributors. The important thing in this case is to make sure it's documented so all contribuors are aware of the situation, but not readers. In other cases a story has become so widespread we need to address it in the article for the readers' benefit as well. 75.60.17.64 (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Newspapers remove material from their website frequently, and sometimes unintentionally. We even have a term for it: WP:LINKROT. How can we determine if a removal was due to a quasi-retraction instead of other causes, like a desire to free up space on a server?   Will Beback  talk  19:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

According to Jayen466 above, OTRS and several other editors have seen a letter from TSL Education, the publisher of the magazine, saying that the story was pulled. Hardly an ordinary case of linkrot. I am still not sure that we shouldn't include the information, but the question is why it was (silently) retracted, not if it was retracted. Hans Adler 22:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as editing the article in question goes, it doesn't really matter at the point: the discussion is focusing on information verified by another source (an academic journal). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Which is a primary source. See WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:NPF. This is a question of proportionality. The BLP subject was marginally notable in the first place. The first AfD was closed "No consensus". The BLP subject has asked, pleaded, to have his biography deleted from Wikipedia, because for the past two years it has been used to hound him, and has literally ruined his life. For those two years, the article has been a WP:COATRACK, simply used to announce to the world, with top billing for anyone Googling his name, that a paper of his was retracted, with a big fat "Plagiarism" subheader in the article and prominent mention in the lead, edit-warred into the article time and again, and representing more than 25% of the entire article content. After two years, he has succeeded in having the secondary source that editors used as justification for turning his biography into an attack piece removed by the publisher. And now you would still like 25% of his biography to be about one retraction of a journal paper of his that has not attracted attention in any other secondary source than the one now removed by its publisher, by basing it on the primary source of the journal's own statement? There is no proportionality here. There is zero interest in secondary sources. Even his own university restored him to full duties after their investigation concluded, accepting that the attribution errors were not deliberate, but due to personal stress and overwork. This is a semi-private individual, considerably less notable than he was two years ago due to the fall-out. There is no public interest served in using Wikipedia to pillory someone like him. --JN466 11:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

So then the standard for removing a source would be an official notice from the publisher, submitted to OTRS or printed publicly, announcing a retraction? That's probably reasonable.   Will Beback  talk  23:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope. We have higher standards than that in how we treat living people. We treat BLPs with kid gloves. Cla68 (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm wearing kid gloves now - may I handle you? ;) What's your proposal, aside from donning gloves? Do we deleted all sources that are no longer online? That'd eviscerate the encyclopedia.   Will Beback  talk  23:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should read it...

MalikPeters (talk · contribs)

Jimbo, although we keep removing it because the editor just keeps creating new disposable userids in order to rant, I'll link to one of his earlier attempts to post it. Seeing as my name is mentioned, I have no issues with anyone reviewing either the situation or my role within it. This is one of the diffs where he added it, and the first blocked account is right here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• In general I would prefer that we be more lenient than normal on my user talk page, particularly when someone is upset about something they view as an incorrect application of the rules. If he posts it again, I'd rather we discuss it than revert it - to a point, of course. Possibly something useful will come of it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, that's why I brought it back ... at least partly (would not want to WP:EW/WP:WHEEL on your talkpage :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yet another highly experienced user has gotten caught in the sock-block-complain-newsock-newblock quicksand trap. This time it looks like the admins are targeting the victim as a case of sock-block-complain-resock-ban-from-Wikipedia. The user was careful to keep the original account secret, so might be able to return to editing, peacefully, even though the intent is to edit-ban the user due to being caught in the sock-trap. I wonder if the people working on policy WP:SOCK knew this would drive many experienced users to leave WP. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I hope he does return to editing peacefully; I think that the original socking was totally misguided rather than disruptive. As the original blocker I'm totally happy for the community to review the situation - here or anywhere else. I'm confident the community agrees that socking to "question" another editor is not at all legitimate. For my own part, the reason I ultimately supported trying to expose which editor it was is a) because he started being very uncivil and casting aspersions at me and Bwilkins (trawling my history for find something to throw at me) and b) because he keeps threatening to take it all to Arbcom. And I would like to know which editor holds this over my head (I'm fairly sure I know who it is anyway, but confirmation never hurts). Reviewing the situation could be beneficial to see where we could have approached things differently, and whether we need to clarify the Socking policy to make sure it explains to editors the standard expected of their interactions. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
• It takes time to untangle WP:SOCK policy loopholes: When people are trying to keep their real names or username hobbies from being "outed" then the use of WP:SOCK#Legit accounts becomes an obvious choice, but there is a "slippery slope" where neutral discussions can slip into borderline uncivil sarcasm or slip into unintended vulgarities (such as saying "bullocks" or "pillock" not realizing the highly vulgar origin of those terms). A similar comparison I've seen in U.S. English is to tell people they are "full of bull" where "bull" is an ellipsis form for "cattle excrement" which is also vulgar when considered from that aspect. Hence, a person starting with a valid sock username might enter a discussion, then slip into a heated debate, and use idiomatic expressions without realizing the perceived attacks. Another example is to use the word "slow" as in a "slow group of editors" who make changes slowly, but have "slow" interpreted as "slow-witted" or "unintelligent" as some people have insisted. At that point, using a sock "anonymous username" becomes viewed as an attempt to violate WP:NPA while "evading" detection. We have recent real-world cases: some people become well-known in their small hometowns by their WP usernames, because Wikipedia has become a part of mainstream society, such as giving Facebook usernames, then they sock to discuss issues privately (away from their hometown crowd) but get outed as bad users who "violated" sockpuppet policies (not only losing privacy but being smeared as policy violators in the hometown). Another real-world case: an award-winning author instinctively creates a real-name username ("I am the real <username>") to refute rumors in talk-page discussions, then that same person creates an "alternate username" (for privacy), but enters some same talk-pages and is seen as "evading detection" as an invalid sock username. Meanwhile, many admins are just too busy to untangle these loopholes in policies, so we have this downward spiral of people being outed and semi-publicly humiliated by subtle Catch-22 "vicious circles" in policies. I hope that wasn't too WP:TL;DR rambling, but WP:SOCK should not be enforced so drastically. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You find me in some level of agreement - when you are talking about protecting our off-wiki identities (or view versa). Indeed, we already have a strong consensus on helping editors avoid being associated with their private lives. But... then that same person creates an "alternate username" (for privacy), but enters some same talk-pages and is seen as "evading detection" as an invalid sock username.; well that clearly is evading detection. If they already had a user account under their real name, then created another one to contribute further to the discussion... that's a problem of deception and a block is the right move. I can't think of any legitimate reason (assuming they weren't editing other topics) for one editor to contribute to the same article with two accounts! In this case none of the legitimate uses of Socks stood up; the account was created purely to avoid scrutiny while pursuing another editor over an issue. One of the most important concepts in our community is that of transparency - weakening the socking policy to allow that sort of behaviour leads us into the situation where throwaway accounts to pursue a specific issue are the norm. And we end up no longer being able to trust who is who :) (the editor seems to have gone to some length to protect his main account, which for me takes away the vestiges of good faith remaining in their actions). So as to your final comment; the sort of anonymous socking that is allowed should be specific and rare exceptions (as we already detail in the legit uses section). --Errant ^(chat!) 12:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I have long thought that we need an essay WP:Respect the border zone. Many conflicts in Wikipedia follow this pattern:

• A policy or guideline defines the border between what is allowed and what can be sanctioned.
• Which side of the border an individual action falls on often depends on one's interpretation of the plain wording, of the plain wording when put into the context of the entire policy and guideline, and/or of the plain wording when put into the context of all policies and guidelines and our unwritten practices.
• An editor does something which he or she legitimately thinks is allowed or even required. Another editor legitimately thinks that it's forbidden and reacts accordingly. (E.g. ANI report, official warning, block, or censoring comments, as happened to me recently.)

Making our policies and guidelines less ambiguous helps. Making them more consistent with each other and actual practice also helps. But this is a lot of work and will never solve the problem completely. What we need is a general awareness of the problem. We must be very careful when we want to do something that we think is allowed but may fall into the border zone, and we must also be very careful when reacting to something that we think is forbidden but may fall into the border zone. This is a no more than common sense, just like an air condition system set to 21 °C doesn't heat with full power when the actual temperature is 20 °C and doesn't cool with full power when it is 22 °C. In fact, it won't heat at all at 20.8 °C and won't cool at all at 21.2 °C. But in practice we don't act like that. When we feel that the thermostat should really be set to 25 °C, then at 20.9 °C we still heat like mad to make a point. Then of course whoever feels that 19 °C would be better will start cooling vigorously as soon as the temperature has reached 21.02 °C.

This phenomenon is observable in its purest form in the case of civility blocks, but it also applies to socking as you described and many other areas. Hans Adler 09:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that, as the person admits, they created the ID specifically to ask a question - that is by definition "to avoid detection". There are indeed many real life reasons to create an alternate account, but this specific situation was not one of them. Now, the first one could have been forgiven - if one WP:AGF's, that it was not done to be a WP:DICK, and might have been a misunderstanding/bad idea. Fine - forgiven. The half-dozen more afterwards to make a WP:POINT were an absolute abuse of alternate accounts, and tainted the possible forgiveness for the original transgression. Indeed, because of the later abusive use of WP:SOCKs, since a block applies to the person, in theory the original account would need to be blocked. A truly unfortunate and ridiculous situation and pointless overall. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

So what's your take on this Jimbo? Does the letter and/or the principle of WP:SOCK allow an established editor to create an alternate account, for the sole purposes of engaging in polite dispute resolution with an editor like Malleus from a position of complete uninvolvement, where there are very obvious reasons why that editor might not want his main account to be known by onlookers. Let's not forget, the claims made above about my supposed motives over and above what I've said they are, are still just that, mere unsubstantiated claims. And let's also not forget, Malleus never asked for the 'protection' as it has been applied by admins in this case. ErrantX just appeared out of nowhere and did what he misguidedly thinks was his duty. I see he has stopped calling what I did harassment (but not either withdrawn that slur on the block log, or even explained how he could possibly have misapplied such a label so badly with zero evidence), but he's still insistent on throwing AGF out the window and labelling my actions as a "pursuit" etc. And BWilkins is still throwing out the insults as he seeks to conveniently justify his slack review & other general un-admin like interaction with me, based on what happened because of it, not anything that I had done before it (again, the lack of any actual evidence offered or questions being answered, shows that these decisions were being made on the fly, from personal pre-judged viewpoints rather than secure policy positions). Sure, now we're here 'in front of teacher', they're both happy to stand by their mistakes based on assumptions that the community would support them post hoc. Do you see any such support? Or even any attempt to divine it? Not good enough. Not WP:ADMIN standard behaviour at all. And the less said about Boing! said Zebedee's review, the better. As far as I'm concerned, what he did is simple admin abuse, particularly the talk page protection . But sadly it's a rare admin indeed who has the integrity and the clue to do his job properly once you reach the stage of a second review. Sure, I didn't have a "real life" reason not to disclose it, wanting to maintain a peaceful life for my main account is hardly that, but it should be blindingly obvious what effect such a viewpoint has on the chances of Malleaus not being royally screwed down the line, thanks to the admins who seek to protect him in this misguided manner. I was only trying to spend a few minutes on a difficult issue, for the general health of the site. If I had wanted to put my good record on this site to use as a dispute resolution functionary, I would have entered into the current elections. I don't, so I won't. Nobody here has even considered whether I might even have the bit myself in my main guise. But knowing how he views such baubles, I'd never in a million years attempt to interact with Malleus with it on display, hanging over what are essentially non-admin discussions. And Malleus doesn't tend to inhabit my own wiki-sphere too often, so from a purely selfish point of view, if my help is not wanted and nobody is too bothered about what's happened here, it's no skin off my nose. But I think we've all seen how far the likes of ErrantX and BWilkins get when (if) they ever try to constructively engage with him. And so it goes on, for far too long than necessary, until the inevitable. Is this a feature or a flaw of the Wikipedia community model? Not for me to decide. But bearing in mind it's supposed to run on one simple thing, civil discussion between editors can solve all, the maintenance of which is the sole function of the myriad of behavioural rules like WP:SOCK etc, I'd say it's a glaring flaw. Malik Peters (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Someday I look forward to knowing where I have been the least bit insulting on either your original sock's talkpage, or even above. For someone who's once again evading a valid block, I would hope that you would calm the rhetoric, and actually try to assist in resolution as opposed to revolution. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I was thinking about the repeat references to WP:DICK [1][2], coupled with the general sarcasm, and your selective approach to what points you will and will not respond to (the last of which I'll grant is more of an insult to my/the community's intelligence, as well as your responsibilities under WP:ADMIN, than a direct insult). Malik Peters (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you went in with good intentions at first, but sometimes those just wind up making nice paving stones on the way to a warm place. If you have something to say to another user, then say it with your own identity. Tarc (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Tarc that this was misguided; it's certainly an uncivil way to approach a conversation (even if you act polite). FWIW I was very clear on the exact part of the sock policy that supports this, "Avoiding Scrutiny"; it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions. Although it is allowable to avoid scrutiny in some cases for privacy reasons, this is not one of those situations (if you read WP:LEGIT is specifically relates privacy to real-world issues, and nothing else covers it). The problem with demanding specifics in the policy wording is that nothing on that page supports the action you took. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

And yet, the block log reads sole purpose of harassment, which also matches your block notice, "sole purpose of harassing another editor". And I'd like to hear why you think you have a legitimate interest in my contributions, just because I started a polite discussion with Malleus. WP:SOCK does not support such a suspicious and clear ABF attitude. And you're incorrect in your assumption that the only legitimate uses of socks are for real-world issues, unless you care to explain what the real world aspect of "long-term users might create a new account to experience how the community functions for new users" is? Malik Peters (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

If an unfamiliar person comes to my talk page, I will automatically check the contribs and see what they edit and where we may have crossed paths. If their first edit or thereabouts is to my talk page just then, I'd be highly suspicious of their motivations, regardless of what they actually wrote. Apart from dumb vandalism and trolling (seen here this week), I have had imposters at times try to claim to be people I know, or profess support for something I do as well, trying to bait me into joining them in some argument where they have deliberately stirred up trouble. None of this applies to you per se, but Malleus is the center of a lot of historical drama and shenanigans, both self-created and created by others, as I am as well. So, for either he or other who frequent his page to get red flags over a "new" user posting there is quite natural. Tarc (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Red flags are one thing, instant unsolicited blocks are quite another. Sure, Malleus was suspicious, but not so much that he wasn't quite happy to continue the discussion as far as I could tell, until it was cut short by this unwarranted block. I'm well aware of the ground I was treading, but even so, I see no basis for admins to introduce a new regime whereby anyone who even so much as speaks to Malleus that they don't know, is instantly blocked. He certainly never asked for this sort of 'protection', if anything he is more annoyed about those times when admins take no action when his name is being taken in vain away from his talk page. It was after all his talk page, where he has almost complete and total control, and where I had made it as plain as plain could be that I would stop at any time if he said so. Malik Peters (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)AGF is not a suicide pact; you were socking, which already is problematic. You claim, for example, to have no prior connection to the ongoing dispute, but you can't hold up AGF and demand we believe that. If you are who I am pretty sure you are then you were involved in the dispute the periphery of a previous related dispute. I will give you that at the bottom of WP:HARASS is mentions a tendency to use it too broadly, and I intended it in the nominal sense I would use it in the every day world (else I would have linked to WP:HARASS). Really, though, that's a terminology matter - harrasing, pursuing, bothering, jumping into the middle of a dispute; take your pick, it's no excuse. The reason for blocking was sock-puppeting, that you were doing so to harass Malleus simply strengthened by decision to block. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, first off, you're expected to know how other editors, particularly the accused, will receive charges of harassment, when there is a well known definition of it on this site. How loosely you use the term in your real life is irrelevant (although quite concerning in itself). This is just the same as how you're not at liberty to call people vandals if your definition of one in the real world doesn't meet the established one. Second, as for "AGF is not a suicide pact", that phrase is never applied to situations like this, but to situations where a pattern of behaviour has been established, and/or some sort of proof of wrongdoing has been presented. Your incorrect belief that socks are never allowed and are to be instantly blocked, combined with simple suspicions about who I supposedly am, are simply not good enough. If you want to lay charges of evading scrutiny, then the burden of proof is on you. The actual evidence is as plain as day, I was not "bothering" Malleus and I was not trying to evade scrutiny for any reason other than I've already stated. You simply chose to see it a different way, for reasons best known to yourself, which you cannot excuse by throwing out the 'suicide pact' defence. There was no sense of AGF at all, you don't even come close to being able to claim you had extended some until it became clear it was a suicide pact. No discussion, no investigation, just an instant block. Malik Peters (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I assume good faith that you thought you were doing something useful. However that does not mean the socking policy or general rules of engagement are suspended. You were bothering/pestering/harassing Malleus; in case it is not clear from that discussion they think you are MONGO - as further evidenced by an even more explicit comment today. and where I had made it as plain as plain could be that I would stop at any time if he said so; yet despite being told that it was not OK, you persisted in demanding an explicit "go away"... a fairly uncivil move. All of which is by-the-by, because you socked to insert yourself into a contentious discussion. Hence blocked. our incorrect belief that socks are never allowed and are to be instantly blocked; not at all, I in fact have a very relaxed attitude to most socks. combined with simple suspicions about who I supposedly am, are simply not good enough.; oh come on - it wasn't hard to connect the various dots (I'd be surprised if other admins involved aren't aware either) and that was even before you gloated about it on the main account.... Honestly this is going in circles, and exhibiting examples of the same Wikilawyering incivility as your main account... I'll try to make this my last comment on the topic because it is already becoming tedious: your attitude all throughout has just been way out of sync with the expected high standards of a Wikipedia editor - and both here and under your main account you have refused any level of criticism, even the polite advice, and turned it abusively back on everyone else. Given that situation I've got even less concern about my block. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Your not making any sense at all. Who thinks my main account is MONGO? You? Malleus? Whoever it is, they're wrong. I was told it was not OK? Wrong. I persisted in "demanding" an explicit "go away"? Wrong. All of this is your rather warped view of the discussion. You haven't connected any dots here, but it's clear from these statements that you actually cannot conceive in your mind that there might not be any dots to be connected. Total ABF. I socked to simply keep my privacy, nothing more. At the end of the day, here's the truth - you were watching Malleus' talk page, and you simply didn't like the fact that I wanted to have a polite discussion with him without revealing my main identity, so you jumped in an blocked without discussion or even warning. There's no policy justification for this block, which is why you are now pulling the tired old cliche of greeting requests for one as "wikilawyering", while trying to project all these unseen interpretations and conspiracies of yours, as simply facts, that everyone must accept, because you're an infallible admin. You're not, and some acceptance of that from you would be appreciated, instead of an inexplicable hardening of what was already a weak position. Malik Peters (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if my comment was confusing; Malleus seems to thing you are MONGO. I know you are not :) -Errant ^(chat!) 21:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Although Jimbo can click on the original Malik's contribs as easy as anyone, this link to Malleus's user talkpage will be very illuminating as to the whole story. The intent was to stir the pot with the alternate account, and it's effectively even admitted. This was therefore not a valid use of an alternate account. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, until Jimbo responds further, I must say that I read that talk-page section very carefully (User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum#More_evidence), and I do not see how the "intent was to stir the pot". In fact, the stated intent was to question the use of the term "American rednecks" (and its impact on "others" versus using alternate wording) in the ongoing discussion, as stated by User:MalikPeters twice (here: diff 23:41, 25 November 2011). All comments made by MalikPeters seemed quite civil. If anything, MalikPeters taught Malleus_Fatuorum to spell it as "rednecks" not "red-necks". This was in relation to User:MONGO explaining his background, driving a "pick-up truck" and going "camping" and noting offensive use of the word "rednecks". BTW: The part of that discussion I thought highly offensive, to U.S. citizens, was the term "American... draped in red white and blue" (which can apply to many U.S. citizens who fly the U.S. flag at their homes, daily or on U.S. national holidays). I saw no reason to block User:MalikPeters for posting messages in that discussion. Perhaps, the concerns should have been noted at WP:WQT, to recommend more-proper dialogue (if needed) using the WP:SOCK#Legit account, days before reaching the decision to block a username account which might have been the only username created by an IP-address user. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

"stir the pot" is total nonsense, as can be seen by the evidence. It's just more of the same epic levels of ABF, kicked off by ErrantX, then continued by Bwilkins. This is why it took him just 19 minutes to review the original block; they both simply went off of what they believed, not what they could see or had read, let alone could prove. Not good enough. Not WP:ADMIN at all. Malik Peters (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that it should take anyone more than 19 minutes to review an unblock notice? Anyone who took anywhere close to that long would be not good enough for WP:ADMIN ... even for unblocks of editors with years worth of editing it should not take 19 minutes. You're pissed off because I know how to read quickly? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It's perfectly obvious to anyone who knows what the job entails, that no admin could have reviewed this particular block properly in just 19 minutes, even if they were a speed reader, even if we are making the assumptions that you saw the request immediately, and know the precise wordings of several policies off by heart.

Malik Peters (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

If it took any admin more than 7 minutes to read the unblock, look at the history of that specific editor determine that the unblock did not meet WP:GAB - even if you partly WP:IAR - then you should question that admin pretty darn quick. Unblock reviews are not rocket science, and suggesting that someone needs more than 19 minutes in this case (or in most cases) is ridiculous. I even read the "evidence" twice, just to make sure. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Just now seeing this...I edit from Omaha, Nebraska...the IP may come up as Bellevue, Nebraska...I also do a talkpage edit (as now) on a Blackberry via Sprint...this MalikPeters is not me nor a meatpuppet of mine. However, I share some of the same concerns over the incident and when I voiced them strongly by referring to Malleus as an anti-American bigot, got shouted down probably for good reasons...one cannot fight fire with fire. I apologize in several locations and retracted my comments. For the record, I have anything to say to Malleus, I'll surely do so as MONGO.MONGO 17:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I apologise if ErantX's paranoia is causing you un-needed stress. Malik Peters (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Paranoia... familiar... *ahem* Anyway - sorry MONGO for the confusion above. The comment I linked to notes the belief in a connection to you - but I am aware this is not the case. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

This is going nowhere; I fairly confident this person is now blocked both as the socks (except this one) and as the other account (through normal means) and it feels much like we are going round in circles; this is an editor who simply does not seem to understand the standards expected of editors, and has a very strange opinion of what constitutes incivility (basically; anything we say to him is uncivil, but personal attacks laid back at us are purely the truth). M; I encourage you, whenever a legit unblocked account becomes accessible to bring this before the community in whatever venue you see fit and have it scrutinised. Till then, I don't see the point in going around and around the same issues and suffer the level of abuse you are resorting to. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Need for resources to improve quality

Jimbo, I'm simply going to refer you to the discussion here. FAC editors are asking for resources, including me. Can you tell us if this would be a budget buster from your point of view, or if our thought that it is feasible for WMF to help us is out of line?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea mentioned in that discussion of giving Wikipedians JSTOR accounts. Jimbo: has the Foundation ever looked into the possibility of joining something like the UK Federation or equivalent organisations elsewhere in the world. That could be a way of giving users (who I guess would have to qualify in some way) access to all kinds of ebooks and research papers. (Declaration of no interest: for the time being, I already have access to this). --FormerIP (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You could also talk to some of the GLAM organisers - those institutions commonly have JSTOR access etc. and may be interested in a dual funding role (or sponsored access) via a partnership with one of the chapters. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I also understand that some of the chapters are engaging in activities like this - the Germans in particular. I support it, although overhead and appropriate controls are an issue of course.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not German, despite my chosen username. How do I translate that support into a JSTOR account? I assure you it would be put to good use.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, right, I didn't even notice that - I didn't mean you should ask the Germans. I was speaking to the general philosophical question. Assuring me of good use isn't necessary or - unfortunately - helpful, since I don't have anything to do with making decisions of this type, nor do I know who does at the moment.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

How much does JSTOR access cost? I tried to find out and failed miserably :) Many of the chapters offer grants, and some of them specifically ear mark portions for use globally; that could be one route. --Errant ^(chat!) 18:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

They do not offer it to individuals, or I would not have bothered Jimbo. You have to go through an organization, many schools or local libraries, though not my library (I do not go to school).--Wehwalt (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting; looks like the best bet might be something like EduServ Athens etc. Although I am unsure how much that would cost. Certainly, if there is the serious potential of funding to set something up then it would be worth pursuing. (this looks like what we'd want) --Errant ^(chat!) 19:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Athens or another thing called Shibboleth is the technical side of it. It doesn't get you any actual content, I think. Anyway, I guess the bottom line from Jimbo's response above is that it should be raised with someone else. --FormerIP (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

True. I'll look at the bright side. As I have a watch with me, I can't say he sent me away without the time of day.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

See these pages.

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange
• User:John Carter/Reference sources
• User:John Carter/Reference works
• The Infography

—Wavelength (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you; I am aware of such resources. However, there is a synergistic effect from having "browsing" access to the latest research. Using the resource exchange is rather like trying to do research by asking people to bring you books from the library. It is a noticeably inferior method to visiting the library yourself.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The second and third of those pages include links to free reference websites. The fourth of those pages has a search function for finding resources, including free reference websites. I suggest that you try it with a few of your favorite topics.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I did. My search was Garret Hobart, my current project.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

For the latest research, there are open-access journals.

• Directory of Open Access Journals at http://www.doaj.org/
• JournalSeek at http://journalseek.net/

—Wavelength (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

My experience is the same as Wehwalt's: Nothing that I've come across, including all the links that have been shared here, compares to Jstor for quality, quantity, and breadth of the journals. And nothing compares to having actual access, vs. requesting individual articles at the resource exchange. First Light (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Throwing a couple of darts at the WMF staff page suggests you should ask Stephen Walling or Maryana Pinchuk (both "Community Organizer") if they are the right people to ask. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Philippe reached out to me on my talk page and he is trying to get it for me. It would really come in handy. I'd like to have my second president at FAC sometime this spring (McKinley).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The real issue

Personally I find the whole "pay to read" concept to be an abhorrent way to stratify information access and create a class of "elites" above the common people, introducing "knowledge restricting middlemen" whose only purpose is to man the gates and pad their own pockets in the process.

So apparently only certain editors are "bestowed the privilege" of having access to high quality citations? Apparently so. Sourcing articles like list of batteries is nearly impossible without IEC/ANSI specification access.

As far as I'm concerned everything should be freely accessible for sourcing of any content, anywhere. IEC, ANSI, NFPA, Journals, scientific papers, all of it. Open access to anyone. What is the justification for restriction of access by "the common people"? The real goal appears to be extraction of blood and tears from the engineers that can apply the information, but for us armchair hobbyists the restrictions serve no purposes.

For example it'd be very interesting to see what happens if every autistic person were to have free access to scientific journals on ridiculously obscure technical information. Rather than uselessly memorizing baseball facts and dates they could be finding new ways to think about DNA sequences and protein models. Oh, but giving every random joe off the street access to such information would be far too expensive. Gotta save the info for the few elite scholars and research universities who can cough up the cash for it.

I'm all in favor of saying "fark the system" and finding ways to distribute all this privileged information freely to anyone who wants casual access. The whole restricted information access system should be ripped down and torn apart. DMahalko (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Brexx

A second chance was properly given; the user failed the test; the ban was reinstated
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello, Jimbo i sent you an e-mail like a week ago, explaining to you my dilemma regarding my Brexx account....You replied to me and told me that you are giving me another chance, and told me to pick one account and stick with it and edit constructively. I answered you saying that i picked the Don't Talk With Me account and that i'm gonna stick with it and i promised you that i'm gonna edit constructively and add reliable information with reliable sources. You said that your gonna leave me a message on my talk page and say that you talked to me and that i promised you that i'm gonna stick with the Don't Talk With Me account and that ill behave. Anyway, so, shall i start editing with the account now or shall i wait for you to tell me when? Don't Talk With Me (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC) Behave yourself, I'm sure many people will be watching. Make good edits and stay out of arguments and I'm sure everything will be fine, though.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC) How on earth did Brexx get unblocked without community consultation? He's been banned for years, and has failed to be unblocked via BASC.—Kww(talk) 20:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC) You are aware that he is the owner of over 180 blocked socks, and has been attempting to persuade other users to "trade" accounts with him in order to evade his ban? And in three years of block evasion, has never learned to edit?—Kww(talk) 20:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC) Can you also unban and unblock User:Vote (X) for Change, as well, or should I do that? It's only fair. –MuZemike 22:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC) Just in case you don't remember, User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 84#Voicing a concern that administrator misconduct results in the revdelete of criticism. –MuZemike 22:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC) Ugh. Jimbo once again oversteps. This should have been discussed with the community. HurricaneFan25 22:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC) I wonder what would happen if I unilaterally overturned a ban? Resolute 22:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC) We'd all get desysopped and/or stabbed to death by the scores of pitchforks the community would bring. –MuZemike 23:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC) Something like that yes. Jimmy, i know that par WP:UNBAN you have the right to unban an account, but bans are not handed out only to counter a few bits of vandalism of a few sockpuppet accounts. Instead they are handed out only in cases where the amount of abuse is so extreme that the community decides that there is no indication that any good will come from allowing to edit. I am all for assuming good faith and second chances, but we are talking about a long term vandal with a very, VERY long history of vandalism. Wouldn't it at least have been a bit more... sensible to raise this on one of the noticeboard that deal with this kind of issue then just plain granting an unblock, as they would at least have been able to provide some input regarding this particular situation? Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 23:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC) I've been going over Brexx's original talk page and initially he may have been trying to contribute positively. He didn't seem to understand that you can't just copy stuff from other websites. this dif tells the whole story as it shows that he thought "copyright" meant just the opposite of what it is. If you wish to give him another chance then ok, but if he copies anything from anywhere and puts it on Wikipedia, then the game's over. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC) His long term problem is better seen by looking at User talk:Anywhere But Home. It took about two months before people figured out it was Brexx, and you can see the problems he caused in the interim: edit warring, failure to follow guidelines, and adding incorrect information. User talk:Prettybeautifulnailsalon looks about the same way, and that was just last month.—Kww(talk) 01:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Can you all just calm down, geez....look at all my edits, they are all in good faith and all backed by reliable source. Jimbo is giving me a chance and he is the only one who believed in me,.....He is the founder of this site, and when he gives me a chance, you should all respect his decision. Don't Talk With Me (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Actually, you were corrupting release dates and sources by the fourth article you edited. I've placed a final warning on Don't Talk With Me's talk page again. I don't expect his period of unblocked editing to be of any particularly long duration. As for "respecting his decision", by not immediately reblocking you on the first bit of false information you put into an article, I've just shown far more respect for it than Jimbo showed for the hours of effort I've put into undoing the damage you and your socks have done.—Kww(talk) 01:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Is it only hours? I figured it'd be more like days. I'm totally agog at this move. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC) I was not corrupting anything......i replaced it with another source that said November 18.....but since earliest dates are the ones that should be put in the infobox, i changed it back...........I know your gonna keep looking for the slightest mistake so you can report me.... listen, i am here in good faith and to make wikipedia a better place..... i am not vandalizng......3 years ago, yes, i made mistakes, but im not like that anymore, were all human, we all make mistakes, as can be seen in your block log, you were blocked several times, but were given chances, and i deserve that as well.........so, please...if u want to be friends, ill be more than happy for that, as were are both in the same team, we are both here to help make wikipedia a reliable place. Don't Talk With Me (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC) For the benefit of those following this discussion, I've just turned down a request from Brexx/Don't Talk With Me (talk · contribs) to unblock their university's IP address so they can edit from there as well as from home. This IP address appears to be shared and was blocked mainly because Brexx was using it to create sockpuppet accounts. Given their history of socking, I think that it's reasonable for Brexx to stick to their home IP address until they earn the trust of the community. Judging from the number of edits he or she has made since being unblocked, this doesn't seem to be a significant limitation to Brexx being able to edit. Nick-D (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC) So is it okay for me to unilaterally unban (not unblock), say this guy or this guy without deferring to the community or ArbCom or BASC first? Just a quick "Behave yourself, I'm sure many people will be watching" and we're good? Seriously - I can't believe this just happened - Alison ❤ 06:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC) You 'can't believe this just happened'? How long have you known Jimbo? --PumknPi (talk) 06:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC) I have re-blocked. Jimbo will be well-advised to read my rationale here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I support the re-block based on "Actually, you were corrupting release dates and sources by the fourth article you edited."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

So WP:ROPE does work, sometimes :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Good reblock, bad unblock, bad hatting summary. Second chances shouldn't be given on a whim or without more indications that anything would really change from the first time around, and shouldn't be given without some consultation with those involved in the first block(s). Fram (talk) 10:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Your Appeal

I don't see how you can say there is no place for adverts on wikipedia, there what power the rest of the free internet and they wouldn't be any more irritating than the appeal banners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.173.94 (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Asking for donations once a year to keep this project running does not violate our policy against advertisements. Secondly, our prohibition is only partially based on annoyance; rather, it is to keep WP as independent as possible. If we have paid advertising we enter a conflict of interest and that could both degrade article quality and integrity. N^oformation ^Talk 22:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia and censorship

You may be interested in my overview of changes to WP:NOTCENSORED throughout the years. See WT:NOT#The path to Wikipedia policy fundamentalism -- a case study. Hans Adler 22:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Very good!

I remember years ago one of the early policies written about objectionable material; when evaluating material of this nature for inclusion in an article simply ask; "is it really necessary". This advice, elegant in its simplicity, required adult judgment, something the Wikipedia community seems to have less and less of over the years while policy has grown and grown. Nowadays, the more objectionable the material the greater its protection under the banner of anti-censorship. I'm not sure but I think it may have been Larry Sanger who wrote ask yourself, is it really necessary. --PumknPi (talk) 09:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)