User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Controversial current events

Articles about controversial current events seem to attract editors with a bias. I have the impression that Wikipedia's influence on public opinion for these subjects is negligible compared to the influence of the news media, so that the only thing a biased editor could accomplish is to influence readers that Wikipedia is biased. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Controversial article attract biased editors on both sides as well as neutral editors. Hopefully all sides work together to form an article that is neutral and unbiased (+/-5%).~Technophant (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Look! A dead seagull flying high! - Nabla (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

You know, I've been giving that some thought. Evaluating bias in an article can be difficult. Sometimes a reader with bias regarding an article's subject will think a neutral article is biased. Sometimes an editor might want to believe that Wikipedia articles on controversial subjects are biased or unbiased, and that might affect their objective evaluation. I suppose that leads to the question of whether Wikipedia articles on controversial current events have been evaluated for bias in some objective study, or at least some attempt at one.

Regarding my original comment that compared to news media, Wikipedia has a negligible effect on public opinion regarding current events, I realize that's only while the events are current. As time passes and news reporting of the event goes away, I think Wikipedia may be the most influential written source about the event. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

User:MutterErde

Hi, User:Jimbo Wales, why did you block Mutter Erde? Lotje (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Strange to bring up something from 2005, but of course you can just look up the reason at the block log: "persistent copyvios after repeated warnings". Deli nk (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, strange to ask about a block from nearly 9 years ago. (Amazing to think how long it has been!) What made you wonder?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The edits on the different wikipedia do not seem to "fit". Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't the old blocks be let to expire after a time limit? Otherwise we'll end up with an enormous number of indefinite blocks by the year 2100... Count Iblis (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Possibly but what's the harm?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

We probably won't be around by 2100. Besides, it's not like they're doing any harm. BethNaught (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully!188.132.226.2 (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, looking toward the year 2100 according to this article: "This brings us to what I think may well be the most important task of our time. If there will eventually be an "intelligence explosion," how exactly can we set up the initial conditions so as to achieve an outcome that is survivable and beneficial to existing persons?" If Wikipedia is going to be used as a source about us, then we should be very careful about how we edit here :) . Count Iblis (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Throughout Wikipedia, "harm" seems to have become the watchword, and it seems "harm" can only be done by having content, not by not having it. So there's no harm in deleting articles 'just to be safe', based on some guess about what might happen if people read them, even when the rest of the world doesn't see it that way; nor in getting rid of the editors (like MeropeRiddle in the thread deleted above) for expecting, naively, that Wikipedia policy is publicly readable someplace; nor is there harm, as you say, in keeping a database of editors to be blocked for all time, so that the threat of some outing deters them from ever trying to start afresh. But if the people here really believe all that, why don't you just walk down to the server room and empty a couple of clips into them? You could probably avoid hundreds, even thousands of embarrassing incidents, even save a few lives somewhere, though we may not know where, by preventing the wrong people from learning the wrong thing. Sure, some readers lose some knowledge that might have slaked their idle curiosity, but who cares? That's as valueless as the hundreds of thousands of edits so many of the most active editors put in before being banned for some trumped-up issue. Why do so many here act like they really believe that contributions are the problem, information is the problem, and discarding editors and censoring out the facts is the universal answer? Wnt (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Nice rant, but not sure how it applies in this context. We are talking about a user banned for "persistent copyvios after repeated warnings".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You don't think we can let someone like that have a fresh start after nine years? True, in many ways it might be better for the person to start a fresh account and never mention the old one, but the way WP works, as long as the old one remains blocked there's a risk that the person admits he used to post under that account or can be traced from some postings on the web, etc. -- and end up with a fresh batch of trouble. We would do better to sweep all this stuff aside. I think past contributors, whether perfect or not, are still a good pool of prospects for future involvement. Wnt (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do think we can let just about anyone have a fresh start after nine years. That's why I said that I don't claim any special privilege with respect to the fact that I happened to be the one who banned him. We should just treat it like any other ban from nine years ago. What I meant in my comment to you is that the rant about having content versus not having content isn't really relevant to this particular case.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@ User:Wnt, you are right, information is the problem... too often. Though, I am convinced wiki wizzards and fairies are keeping a vigilant eye and help wherever they can.

@ User:Jimbo Wales, would you consider unblocking User:Mutter Erde. He, might be willing to make a fresh start. Thank you for considering it. Ye'all have a great day today. Lotje (talk) 06:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

So really what your are asking for the ban on User:MutterErde to be lifted. The relevant policy page is WP:UNBAN although it is a little unclear how bans imposed by Jimbo can be lifted. I would start by the user making a case for why the ban should be lifted on their talk page: User talk:MutterErde. The appeal should address the two main reasons the ban was imposed WP:COPYVIO and WP:SOCK. Note ban and blocks are different things, bans which MutterErde has are more serious. See the reason for the ban at WP:BANLIST.--Salix alba (talk): 08:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Just read the text in the Jimbo Wales section of WP:BANLIST. "They may appeal their ban by emailing him or the Arbitration Committee."--Salix alba (talk): 08:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

In this case, I'm happy to say that the fact that I am the one who banned him 9 years ago should play no special role today. If he seeks to be unbanned, he can follow whatever procedure the community thinks appropriate.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

How generous of you after only 9 years of ban to allow a human being to be thrown to one of your drama boards to satisfy your community! 188.132.226.2 (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

About the harm this does, consider the situation on the long run. After a time T, the fraction of editors blocked in a time period spanning t will scale as t/T (this will start to be valid some time after the number of editors has stopped to grow exponentially). So, we'll have a huge list of blocked editors, but that list will be dominated by people who were blocked a long time ago. We keep an eye on new editors to see if they are socks of the blocked editors, so most of that effort is going to be wasted on checking for irrelevant or non-existent threats with the risk of false positives (who cares if an editor blocked at the age of 15 has returned at the age of 30?) The editors who should remain blocked are the editors who were blocked recently (in the last few years or so). It thus makes sense to unblock all editors after, say, 5 years unless there is evidence of recent misbehavior by socks. Count Iblis (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• IMO after 5 years, unless the community has decided that they cannot come back under any means, a banned or blocked editor should be able to make a clean start account, and if someone finds out it will not be held against them. KonveyorBelt 19:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

In all honesty, am confused because I noticed there is a User:Mutter Erde and a User:MutterErde. I posted a message on the de.wikiquote userpage because I feel, having said A, I need to say B. The rest is up to everyone concerned I guess. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we need an automated process to randomly delete stuff from Wikipedia. We could start with empty sections. They are so evil [1]. Stubs should be next, particularly those with zero refs etc. Then we could have process by which we automatically delete sourced material too, particularly if admin disagrees with it. Most sources are known to be unreliable from time to time. So DELETE all of them, just as a precaution. JMP EAX (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@ User:Jimbo Wales, sorry to trouble you again with blocked users, but from what I retrieved today, and what has been confirmed in a certain way by Mutter Erde, the Hans Bug case might be, as Mutter Erde calls it: ...die traurigste Leiche im Keller seiner deutschen WP-Filiale (translated: ...the saddest corpse in the basement of the Germand WP-Chapter.) IMHO, some checking at the 'wizzard heaven' would not harm anyone. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@ Jimbo: This case seems to be a bit strange. As far as I can see MutterErde's "last words" are placed on YOUR talk site - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=next&oldid=23835406#Have_you_seen_this_.3F . They are a complaint or even a request for help, which you didn't answered with a link to the new fair use rules/templates of these days in September 2005, but with a ban of this productive author. Right or wrong? 91.65.74.2 (talk) 09:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia editor being railroaded by Wikipediocracy

[Note from Jimbo: I will be unable to look into this in a timely fashion but it sounds like there would be nothing for me to do at this stage anyway other than the usual: to advice calm, quiet reflection, a reduction of drama, and a serious effort to treat everyone with dignity as human beings.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)]

Mr Wales, Tutelary was doxxed by members of Wikipediocracy. They also claim that she is not really a transwoman, which is obvious transphobia. Now there is a proposal on ANI to topic ban her from BLPs or even site ban her. Just because she moderates some subreddits about women on Reddit does not mean that she is an MRA. Remember, Wikipediocracy are the same people who claimed that a KKK member shouldn't be editing articles about Jews. That's not how Wikipedia works - anyone can edit anything. I bet Tutelary knows more about feminists than most of the people who edit in that topic area. Please put a stop to this harrassment by Wikipediocracy supporters. Anyone voting to ban Tutelary should be banned for supporting doxxing. Doxelary (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

This is my favorite edit. We wouldn't want the readers thinking a fedora was ever anything but the manliest of manly hats. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow, Elaqueate, that's pretty impressive — 1300 edits your first month at Wikipedia and more than 3500 your second!!! Care to disclose your previous account name??? You don't seem to want to link account names on your user page, I see... (The cult of anonymity sucks.) Carrite (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC) — my bad, read years as months. Still — no linkage of accounts showing. Carrite (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I've never had another Wikipedia account. There's nothing to link. How many accounts do you have? __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

If you were to take a gander at the page's history, it will be painfully obvious the context of that revert. But yes, in given Doxelary's (is that a play on my name?) observation, I have been doxxed and there is a ANI proposal to site ban me. Oh, and for sheer else other than respect to trans people, a savvy ArbCom member should take a look at the whole darned mess as there are several people still referring to me by male pronouns when I've made clear that I am a woman. Tutelary (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to make you uncomfortable here Tutelary, but I am sure you understand why people may be confused by your statements about your gender. You have recently said that you are not a man and not trans but a woman (with the implication being that you were born a woman). Yet you identified briefly here as trans. You now say this was by accident, but it seems an awfully strange mistake to make, expecially in light of everything else. Wikipediocracy seems to think that you are a dude pretending to be trans and the comments on that blog post have links to where someone with your username talks about pretending to be a woman online so that you can infect their computer via racy images. So, without meaning any disrepect, would you be willing to clarify what you mean by "I am a woman"? Kaletony (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Kaletony (talk), you are apparently brand new to Wikipedia, yet amazingly you have mastered WP policy, jargon and formatting codes -- within 24 hours. Would you be willing to clarify whether you have ever edited WP under another username, or via an IP address? Are you a sock? Memills (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

MeMills, you are topic banned from "discussing the topic of men's rights on any page at Wikipedia unless it is in the context of an appeal of the ban itself". This is a discussion about an editor who is at risk of being banned for pushing an anti-feminist or pro-men's rights agenda. While I'm sure Titelary appreciates your support, mind that you don't get yourself banned in the process. Kaletony (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You do sound familiar -- that tone. I don't want to make you feel uncomfortable, but you haven't answered the question. Mind that you do not get a SPI. But, since you have only be editing WP for about 24 hours, I'm sure you have no idea what that refers to. Memills (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Start a sockpuppetry investigation if you feel like one is needed. Kaletony (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Kaletony, an SPI would not be needed if you simply answered the question: Do you have more than one account? Per WP:Sock: "The general rule is one editor, one account." You state here that 'I believe the preferred term is "alternate account'" which suggests that you have two accounts. If you are using an alternative account, per WP:SOCK#NOTIFY you should have links to each on both your "...main and alternative account user pages, either informally or using the userbox templates made for the purpose." Linking the two accounts would obviate the need for an SPI. Memills (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Please stop badgering me. If you think I'm breaking some rule, take it to ANI. Kaletony (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The badgering is over. User:Kaletony has been indefinetly blocked by Drmies for 'obviously using an alternative account.' I don't know what other alternative account(s) Kaletony has used, but it should be interesting if the sockpuppet investigation can find out. Memills (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

He's just trolling ANI to keep adolescent boys' views of women on Wikipedia by keeping 4chan/reddit/wikipediocracy in permanent form here. WP shouldn't be the permanent repository of every feud invented by adolescents. He's certainly an undisclosed alt and drama generator. He's edited ANI, here and his own talk page. --DHeyward (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Whaaaaat? That's pretty much the opposite of what I said on ANI. People like Tutelary and 123chess456 who hang out in misogynist forums on Reddit should be banned here if they bring those attitudes with them. You really need to work on your reading comprehension. Kaletony (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

That may be and there is no problem with sanctioning those users for their actions. Bringing the battles from those places over extremely marginable subjects Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian to WP and trolling WP with those topics is not welcome. The influx of SPA's and disruptors that are seeking to spill this dispute from reddit/tumblr/twitter to 4chan to Wikipediocracy is trolling. Conflating it with any male/female edit conflict, as you did with CMDC/Specifico is trolling. Further conflating that isolated topic with an unrelated theft of private photos is trolling. If you like, I can find the caricature trope role that you are playing but really it's just trolling to merge disjoint and orthogonal issues into one fireball of social injustice on Wikipedia in order to vainly create a WP:POINT about gender's role on Wikipedia. You have made no constructive edits and have sought to broaden what should be a narrow topic. It doesn't help build the encyclopedia but it is divisive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs) 03:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Please don't use the trans community as a shield for your hate of women, your gender isn't the most important thing here, it's the way you edit and what you are using the website for --5.81.51.98 (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, how horrible of Tutelary to revert a vandalism-only sockpuppet account. Exactly what level of absurdity is this witch-hunt going to reach?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention HJ Mitchell's block was for vague WP:NOTHERE reasoning, not for socking. So their contributions aren't quantifiable for deletion anywho by HJ Mitchell's own block. Tutelary (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

User:The Devil's Advocate: defender to the last of Qworty and User:Bonkers The Clown. (Bonkers calls African Americans niggers on article talk pages, calls the US president magic nigga, and wears a swastika in his user name when greeting newbies at the tea house.) Don't go taking his support as any kind of vindication. His name means what it says. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I know that there is an unfortunate coincidence that you on your travels, Jimmy, and not able to scrutinize things closely, just as you were when the Essjay shit hit the fan, but it is worth considering whether you want to support someone playing the same sort of game as Essjay played of pretending to be what he was not in order to gain an advantage in on-Wiki discussions. Do you again want to let a troll, in this case a misogynist one, be seen to have gulled you?--92.238.57.40 (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Administrator and blocker of the IP HJ Mitchell restored the IP's comment, even though in their block heavily implicated they were a sock, yet he doesn't want us to remove the reply. Still, I am a woman and the fact that you only have insults and dragging my name through the mud to back up your accusations is really telling. Tutelary (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Whoever you are, the facts are clear. You have been pursuing a misogynistic campaign.KonveyorBelt 01:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Doxelary, what exactly do you want from Wales, to block Wikipediocracy? 84.253.75.6 (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary — stop socking. Carrite (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

If Tutelary emails you, I recommend you don't click any links or open any attachments. (Per WP:ANI#For your own safety.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

For all we know, Tutelary may already have hacked Jimbo's account, the accounts of most ArbCom members and Admins. Wikipedia is doomed :). Count Iblis (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh please, Tutelary has directly confirmed they have hacked various peoples computers before, its fair to recommend not opening links from private emails sent --5.81.51.98 (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

On some forum devoted to hacking. If an editor does that here, that's sufficient grounds for an indefinite ban. It's not all that difficult to check if links or attachments are going to cause problems without opening them, so it would be a rather stupid thing to do. Count Iblis (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

need help.............ebola virus epidemic west africa

hi sorry to bring this to your attention, however I've been trying to give an opinion in regards to the latest ebola outbreak on the talk page for "ebola virus epidemic west Africa", however I keep getting the runaround. At issue is the recent publication,,,,,,, http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/09/09/oxford-study-predicts-15-more-countries-are-at-risk-of-ebola-exposure/ ,,,& ,,,http://elifesciences.org/content/early/2014/09/05/eLife.04395 the latter being a scientific journal which on page 45 (pdf) makes a direct relation between the west Africa and Congo outbreaks on its map. I believe this warrants (1) Congo's inclusion into the "cases-table" for overall case amount and (2) a better written Congo part; more connected to the overall ebola outbreak in Africa.I, aside from noting the above on the respective "talk page" have also brought it up with "Gandydancer" one of the principle editors, on this persons talk page, but have gotten little discussion.I believe everyone should be equal in opinion, without "page ownership". How should I proceed in your opinion?,,thank you

P.S.....W.H.O. itself has used west Africa and Congo together to show total cases (page 4 ) as I requested in article,,, (http://www.afro.who.int/en/downloads/doc_download/9431-who-response-to-the-ebola-virus-disease-evd-outbreak-update-by-the-who-regional-director-for-afric.html... .--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a good discussion to have at the talk page. I'm not fully persuaded by your argument as the two outbreaks seem to be unrelated. If there is sufficient data, then I think a separate cases table for the Congo would be wise. And yes, the Congo part should be better written. I am not sure what you mean about "direct relation" and "more connected to the overall ebola outbreak". What we certainly should not do is go against reliable sources and make it seem to the reader that these two outbreaks are directly related. But - this is probably a discussion better held at the talk page. (As you may have noticed, I'm active there already.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I have not given Ozzie a run-around. I replied to him/her on September 10 suggesting that this can be difficult to understand, and suggested that he read the Ebola disease and the Ebola virus articles. He never responded. As for including a table for the Congo outbreak, I don't agree. The West Africa article is long enough as it is, and the Congo outbreak needs to play out a little bit longer before we increase coverage of it, though definitely in a separate article. Gandydancer (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Your reasoning persuades me - almost. I think that a separate article is warranted now, based on significant independent coverage in high quality sources. [2] is an example.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, of course, opinions differ. IMO, considering that many thousands of Africans die each year from preventable disease, a Congo Ebola article that has killed 35 is not needed considering that an outbreak in that area every few years is not at all out of the norm. In fact, to me, it seems a disgraceful lack of understanding of the level of care available to the underprivileged. But since you consider it notable, certainly create the article and watch over it to be certain that it is updated properly. Note, however, that the current article on the West African outbreak is already using the "significant independent coverage in high quality sources" (WHO) for all but one of its sources, I'm not sure what you think may be missing from the current coverage in the existing West Africa article. Or possibly, since you have said above that the South Africa section on the Congo needs to be rewritten, you could just rewrite the section to improve the Congo coverage. Gandydancer (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"a disgraceful lack of understanding of the level of care available to the underprivileged" - that's just a gratuitous and quite frankly ridiculous insult. When you say "considering many thousands of Africans die each year from preventable diseases" I question why you bothered to come here to insult me. The actual number is in the millions.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Foot voting

Hi Jimbo, you and your WMF win by ignoring more than 800[3] votes. As Lenin said: "They voted with their feet". After some 30.000 Edits in 7 years i quit as WP:supporter So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish --Gruß Tom (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

My Two Cents

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My two cents, in reply to a section that appears to be currently in an edit war, but on the general subject of paid editing. It is unlikely that any incidence of someone editing a page with a username that resembles the page subject (be it an individual, company or organisation) is a gotcha moment. It means they don't know the policy (if they did, they wouldn't be using such an obvious name). To me, of greater concern, is editing that policy does allow, such as PR reps who declare WP:COI on less traveled talk pages and then go ahead and edit (on the basis of no talk page objection. eg. [4]). I'm against paid editing but I don't think hounding the ones who don't know policy on this talk page really achieves much. AnonNep (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC) I think you've missed some of my point, AnonNep. It's not about a "gotcha", it's about how established Wikipedians selectively respond (aggressively) to some cases of COI editing, while ignoring others, while even jumping to the aid of still others. For example, right now MONGO is trying to make sure that no reader of Wikipedia learns that New York Law School (the host of Wikiconference USA) has had employees writing their Wikipedia article, along with biographies of senior executives at the school. MONGO repeatedly removes a mere "COI tag" from those articles. How do you think that will look, if the media picks up on the selective nature of that editing? While it may look somewhat bad for New York Law School, it looks reprehensible for Wikipedia as a curator of "neutral" knowledge. - 2001:558:1400:10:3975:E755:22C2:7A3A (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC) To re-state my point: you, me, Mongo or Freddy the Goldfish would be unlikely to suspect that someone connected to a person, business or organisation was editing an associated page without an obvious username. If they have an obvious username and they're editing it suggests they don't understand the policy. That isn't a paid editing gotcha moment, its just someone who doesn't know. IP editing, which there's much less of over the last few years, and policy-savvy username with declared COI, which there seems to be much more of over the last few years, are different things. AnonNep (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC) Mr. Kohs needs to get one of his henchman to post these complaints so it's harder to spot his ban evasion. Love....--MONGO the GOOD 16:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC) Henchmen are increasingly expensive, MONGO. Have you seen what fast-food clerks are demanding for wages? Imagine what a burly, imposing henchman commands these days! Now, as an example for AnonNep, User:Ajuncos had a fairly obvious username, so (if we believe her to be Andrea Juncos, former communications director at New York Law School from 2007 to 2013) we might count her as someone who "didn't understand policy" when they edited (exclusively) New York Law School, Anthony Crowell, and Carole Post between 2007 and 2013. However, User:Leonora1805 is not an obvious username, but also edited (exclusively) New York Law School, Anthony Crowell, and Carole Post between 2013 and 2014. Do you feel it is in the best interest of Wikipedia readers to be alerted to the editing history of these three articles by these two particular editors, or do you feel it is better to deliberately remove any notice that would alert the reader, even if that has the possible appearance of a cover-up? It's a simple question. - 2001:558:1400:10:3975:E755:22C2:7A3A (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC) Block evasion. See this "Why are you such a bitch?" post on @DangerousPanda:'s talk page. Dusti*Let's talk!* 16:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC) Those usernames beg the question...too close for comfort or socks of someone trying to make these people look like they edited their own pages.--MONGO likes Candy 16:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC) MONGO, you really think there's been a 7- or 8-year campaign by someone to "joe job" the communications department at New York Law School? I marvel at how a semi-useful encyclopedia gets written around here, considering the deep thinkers overseeing it. - 2001:558:1400:10:3975:E755:22C2:7A3A (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC) Look at it this way....they disinvited you...least they thought about it! If I had signed up they would have cancelled the entire event. It's not like you got stood up on prom night!--MONGO the GOOD 17:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC) The 'simple question' bit was the giveaway. You want 'I don't think it should be tagged' for Gotcha! - there's a cover-up!!! Or 'I do think it should be tagged' for Gotcha! - then all paid COI editing must be okay too!!! Sorry dude, not playing. But wait long enough and someone might fall for it. AnonNep (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC) I am not following your logic on the second Gotcha!. If a user believes that an article with an obvious history of conflict of interest editing should be tagged with a reader notice that contributors have had a conflict of interest, it does not follow that "all paid COI editing must be okay too". Indeed, it would suggest that the user's belief is that other forms of paid COI editing should be tagged, also. I'm sorry if this is confusing to you, but it seems terribly simple to me. - 2001:558:1400:10:3537:62F8:5C22:7441 (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC) Put it this way - if paid editing was an either/or issue then it would be a x + y = z, and performed by a bot. That it isn't performed by a bot, suggests some complexity at times, but not enough to justify an ongoing personal campaign of righteousness, no matter how heartfelt, because if it was that clear cut - or simple - then it would be bot territory. AnonNep (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC) Right, wrong, good, bad....Kohs is site banned and therefore this section should be hatted.--MONGO 13:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC) Not fussed on hatting. While the subject is worth debate (and I, personally enjoy engaging the opposite), rhetorically it appears we have an undeclared agenda pusher, which is unlikely to progress constructively and collaboratively for the best interests of Wikipedia. AnonNep (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)