User talk:Jimbo Wales

Wikipedia blocking in a particular country

... with Russia in mind :-) It is well known and much quoted your opinion on the matter, see for instance Russian Wikinews "ru:Джимми Уэйлс: Подчиняться давлению слабых и трусливых политиков — это не путь Википедии" (= "Catering to the demands of weak and cowardly politicians — is not the Wikipedia way"). It is said back in 2013 and I quote again:

For me, being blocked is always preferable to collaborating with censors. It’s important to understand that the fear of site-wide blocking is based in concerns that some (smaller, presumably) ISPs may lack sufficient technical resources to block individual pages, forcing them to block the entire site to comply with the law. Believe me, if those ISPs block the entire site, while other ISPs only block specific pages, the ones which block all of Wikipedia will lose customers very very quickly. We are not weak, we are very powerful. Catering to the demands of weak and cowardly politicians — the kind who fear the spread of knowledge — is not the Wikipedia way.

Nevertheless I see two significant changes ever since:

1. Back in 2014, one year later, you said ("Russian alternative to Wikipedia"): "<...> unless the Russian government decides to block access to Wikipedia, a prospect that I previously considered highly unlikely, but one which the events of the past two years have suggested is entirely possible <...>"
2. Since 2015 the Wikimedia projects' access model is fully changed from "take what you can" to "take it all or nothing". Because with HTTPS-only access with native certificate check and the majority of project on the same IP-pool there are not options anymore to ISPs to block specific pages, it doesn't matter, are they small or not, technically equipped or not.

The last change especially makes the rationale of your comment of 2013 rather obsolete, as properly pointed (not by me) at the talk page of the list of pages, included to the Common register of prohibited websites.

So I was wondering if you have a comment, correction or a more strong word formulation to your position of 2013 reflecting the changes listed above?

Respectfully, --Neolexx (talk) 11:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks for asking. The first sentence still stands, as ever: "For me, being blocked is always preferable to collaborating with censors. " And the last two sentences still stand, "We are not weak, we are very powerful. Catering to the demands of weak and cowardly politicians — the kind who fear the spread of knowledge — is not the Wikipedia way." As this situation slowly unfolds, I am so far very proud of the Russian Wikipedia community and their agreement with this. (They banned a rogue admin who is pro-censorship and visited the regulator and apparently "agreed" to censorship demands.)

One of the techniques that the Russian Wikipedians have used to deal with the situation is one that I approve of heartily. For pages that the government complains about, they focus a lot of attention on the articles to improve them, to make them more scholarly, and more in line with what an ideal Wikipedia entry should be. This has resulted in the removal of demands which could have potentially led to blocking. However, press rhetoric is ramping up, and the future is difficult to predict. But Wikipedia is popular in Russia, Wikipedia is useful in Russia, and although the government there isn't the most responsive to popular demands, they really have no good reason to do something really unpopular over something so trivial in the grand scheme of things.

We can usefully compare the situation in Russia to the situation in China. In China, the sensitive topics are mainly those which might appear to some to directly threaten the authority of the Chinese government. In Russia, the sensitive topics to date have mainly been about drug use and homosexuality. One of the ones currently under dispute is Cocaine/ru:Cocaine. The Russian government's clear intention in passing a law regulating speech about illegal recreational drugs was to target those who are advocating the use of them - pro-drug 'propaganda'. It is not likely that they had any real intention of banning a serious encyclopedia article on the topic. This page, as one example, is on the Russian government's own website.

In the long run I am hopeful that we can resolve this issue, possibly by working to see a clarification in the law so that it clearly only targets "advocacy".

I should hasten to add: I do not support legal bans on the advocacy of drug use. My point is merely that I think that what is happening to us in Russia is an unfortunate side-effect.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for your answer. As the topic and your opinion on it should be interesing to many other ru-wiki participants, I have it translated together with my original question at our Common (Общий) forum, en-wiki Village pump equivalent: Мнение Джимми Уэйлса. --Neolexx (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• It is nesessary to mention that editor, who was bloked, only declared intention to seek compromise on the content of the articles within the rules of Wikipedia, not to remove some information at the regulator's wish. Part of the community met with discontent this blocking, and now he is unblocked. Cathry (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Simply "unblocked" would not be fully descriptive. "Russian Wikipedia suspends editor who cut deal with authorities" is one of recent media coverage samples. It may worth noting that:
    - Samal was a Russian Wikipedia admin for 4.5 years: elected in 2010, his admin flag taken away for administrative inactivity in 2014. So in 2015 he was not an admin, the meeting moment inclusive.
    - Samal now strongly refutes that he ever presented himself to the authorities as an admin or as a representative of some Wikipedia community. The matter is now in Russian Wikipedia ArCom case АК:967. --Neolexx (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Hello, Jimbo. As it was mentioned above Samal was not RuWP's admin when he took part in meeting with Roskomnadzor's representatives, and now he is unblocked by the intermediate decision of RuWP's Arbitration Commitee. I suppose that your opinion about articles about narcotics on RuWP is mainly based on mass media's interpretation rather than on primary sources. Fact is that articles about narcotics on RuWP had been written by drug addicts and drug dealers while their edits did not attracted attention of other RuWP's editors. Just for instance, article Cannabis smoking explained in detail to the readers how to "obstruct heel", how to make "steam locomotive" and article about Charas warned readers that in India instead of charas gullible buyers can get compressed dust. RuWP's administrator Grebenkov said about it: "We have ability to delete half of [Russian] Wikipedia as the information is not confirmed by sources". While Russian Wikimedia's representatives (Ctac and Dmitry Rozhkov) give interviews in which they try to represent RuWP in a favourable light and to make Roskomnadzor out a fool, others RuWP's editors eliminate errors, nonsense, freaky fantasies and links to drug addicts' trip-reports. Majority of Roskomnadzor's claims are just even in terms of the RuWP's rules. But some part of RuWP's editors (basicly living outside of Russia) instead of eliminating errors in articles decided to use the situation to get RuWP banned in Russia. Unfortunately these editors are not banned in RuWP because there are several administrators among them. Hhhggg (talk) 06:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Riiiight.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

:-) / Basically there are currently two points of concern and discussion at ru-wiki. The first one is about the particular meeting: did anyone present himself as an admin or/and Russian Wikipedia community representative. The meeting appeared to be audio-recorded and the accused side is ready and willing to prove that the facts are fabricated and leaked to media for some purposes. It might have sense so do not let us into a worsened "Wikipedia Ouroboros" state: when the very participation/blocking of long-standing participants will depend on external media coverage and not on his/her actual proved activity.
The second one seems to be about the monopoly - is any exists or assumed - of Викимедиа РУ (Russian Federation local chapter) for any kind of communications with Russian authorities - or at the very least a necessary participant of any such communication. So the case АК:967 might be long and wordy before a resolution. --Neolexx (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I suppose that current Wikimedia RU's representatives ignore problems with articles about narcotics on RuWP and they do everything to get RuWP banned in Russia - instead of editing the articles to improve quality of the articles current Wikimedia RU's representatives give interviews in that they assert that there are excellent articles about narcotics on RuWP and that there are stupid Roskomnadzor's officials whishing to ban RuWP in Russia. Current Wikimedia RU's representatives ignore problems existing in the articles while other editors solve the problems. It raises question about changing personal composition of Wikimedia RU. I'm afraid that current Wikimedia RU's representatives will lead RuWP to be banned in Russia because of problems with articles about narcotics on RuWP. Hhhggg (talk) 10:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Jimbo! The situation around the Russian Wikipedia continues to evolve, and there are a large number of problems. I would like to discuss this issue with you.

After a brief blocking of Wikipedia in Russia in August 2015, it became clear to me that there are big challenges. We create a free and open encyclopedia for humanity. We're arguing about opinions concerning sports, science, art, even politics. But there are also important social topics, and here comes the problem: how do we here to strike a balance of freedom of information in discussing "sensitive topics"? There are not plenty of these topics. Even there is a little of them, I can say. But objectively they exist. One of these topics is governed by our rule WP:ALIVE: "any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research", "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". Our rules balance between freedom and responsibility.

Obviously we cannot conceal any information; we should discuss these "problematic" topics. You're absolutely right, when you tell us about freedom of information, freedom is our highest value. But we should write on some topics responsibly, with careful approach to the selection of information (I mean WP:RS – Identifying reliable sources), paying some attention to the form and style of presenting information. For example, as described in the rule WP:ALIVE about biographies of living persons. This will allow maintaining a balance of openness and responsibility. And make the encyclopedia better, more “high-quality”. I'm sure of it. It is very important for me.

I want to say a little about interaction with Russian government. The government does not want conflict, and for many years only invites us to the discussion: "Roskomnadzor is actually interested in cooperation with the resource and expects to solve all the problems without resorting to blocking." [1]

One of the participants wrote: "If the Russian Wikipedia will be blocked due to badly written articles about drugs, it will be bad, very bad. It is fine if we were blocked for politics (political convictions), we should be proud of it. But poor articles on drugs are a shame". And I fully agree with him. If the Russian Wikipedia will be blocked, both authors and readers will suffer. Even if will be introduced methods to bypass the blocking, the development of the Russian WP will greatly slow down. In addition it will affect the reputation: there is not any good in headlines in media "Wikipedia is blocked for drugs".

Recently, the situation worsened again. I had a feeling that some of the participants even wish for blocking Wikipedia in Russia. Some of them provoked the authorities; they made very categorical statements in the media, and sometimes even distorted some facts it heighten this confrontation. The others prevented to make any amendments or insisted on amendments that violate our rules. There were not actual steps to resolve the situation. I even wrote about it on the forum of our project Social Responsibility: [2].

And after this post by Ghuron I decided to contact the authorities to understand their attitude and motives:

And I have little faith in the dialogue between the community and officials of Roscomnadzor or Federal Drug Control Service of Russia (I personally, would not resist in a civilised framework). Overall, if the regulator is interested in normalizing relations, they could be asked to get examples: how can you write about drugs from their point of view. That means what level of detail they believe it's appropriate in a conversation about the synthesis, consumption, etc. Not the fact that will help, but at least we can speculate about the boundaries. -- Ghuron 09:07, November 24, 2015 (UTC) [3]

So I had a meeting with representatives of the Roscomnadzor, and the experts have indicated their willingness to a constructive dialogue. I managed to figure out how examination is conducted and how they make a decision on recognition of information is prohibited, and was surprised: their rules are very similar to the rules of the Wikipedia. For example, they say, in the preamble of article about the drug should be written, that it is a drug; and that part of article, which describes addiction and dependence (psychological and/or physiological) is important, etc.

As you can see, these requirements are not contrary to the rules of Wikipedia. They will make the article better, fuller, more scientific (you told us, that these definitions are the best attributes of the "ideal" encyclopedia. It is a good idea and actually we'll look crazy if we abandon it just because of the fact that it was expressed by the representatives of the state. Some participants of the Russian WP reacted well to the proposals. Others even wrote that "if it is from the state, we appeal specifically to do the opposite." To do specifically the contrary is, as we say in Russia, "to freeze my ears to spite my grandmother ". This leads to the deterioration of the content of the encyclopedia.

Also we have an unresolved problem of articles-instructions. For example, here:[4]

This article has the statement that violates the rule about unacceptability of instructions in encyclopedic articles. In addition, these data may be not sufficiently objective and reliable (especially in terms of efficiency and safety of the medicine).

It's for medicine.

For drugs rules are the same or not? If not, this is real hypocrisy. We care about our users, we write carefully about the medication, we tell them, that they should take a professional consultation, visit a doctor. Then why some representatives of Wikipedia called the article about drugs (narcotics) and especially information about methods of application and doses "important (or even the most important) encyclopedic information"? And the section about the consequences they call "not so important". It is necessary to solve this problem. But obviously, direct confrontation and the "language of ultimatums" are unlikely to lead to constructive.

Many people asked me why I reduced my activity in Wikipedia. The reason for this is the condition of the Russian Wikipedia. Part of this process you can see on the example of the claim w:ru:АК:967 (Arbitration Committee) and on TP of this. Some participants violate the principle of civility, I constantly see different curses, political slogans – and all these causes are completely unacceptable, they violate and destroy the very essence of Wikipedia. Our ethics is the greatest basis of Wikipedia that makes Wikipedia truly free and democratic. When I saw this failure to comply with main principles, at first I was surprised, and then offended: I couldn't be more an administrator in the community that violates the principles of its existence.

My negotiations with the authorities were understood and accepted by one part of the community. The other part had not understood and not accepted them. I was accused that I didn't make and attributed what was not said. But I still hope to help: Russian Wikipedia actually stands on the verge of blocking, as long as the blocking is only postponed. Now these articles are on re-examination, and we have very little time to solve this problem; and representatives of Wikimedia in Russia do not make any steps to prevent possible blocking. Some participants rejected any discussion. These words are not the words of the supporters of freedom of information. I want Wikipedia to be continued and developed. And I want it to be available in Russia. The issues are complicated. But I'm sure we need to take constructive steps to resolve the situation. Samal (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Samal, I hereby request you once more to cease your insinuations on Wikimedia RU's actions. We were undertaking, and are still undertaking steps to prevent the Wikipedia blocking in Russia (provided that we follow the Wikimedia movement consensus in general, and the Russian Wikipedia community consensus in particular), and you severely harm these efforts, especially by wrongly describing our position and actions - earlier, apparently, to RosKomNadzor, and now to Jimbo. Please stop doing this anymore. Now and forever. Thank you in advance. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 21:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

"not a big deal"

Hi Jimbo. As you certainly know, you made a statement in 2003 which said that becoming an admin was "not a big deal." This statement has since been widely quoted by those who believe in less strict standards at RfA. However, others contend that the statement is outdated and is no longer relevant today, because now Wikipedia is much more popular than it was at the time. In light of this, I wanted to know if you still stand by that statement, and if you have the time to explain, why you still do. Thank you. Biblioworm 22:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Imagine a model for building an encyclopedia where all the editors are carefully vetted up front before being allowed to write. We called it Nupedia. It failed. What we learned from that is that for things which are reversible, it's better to be open. It's better to give people a shot, because they'll generally do good work and they'll learn as they go. Another thing that we learned is that the vetting process didn't really work at finding good writers and excluding bad ones.

Now look at how we manage the admin process. Everyone is so carefully vetted up front before being allowed the admin tools. And guess what? For things that are reversible, it's better to be open. It's better to give people a shot, because they'll generally do good work and they'll learn as they go. And the vetting process we use very likely selects for some wrong things, i.e. it doesn't necessarily really work at finding good admins and excluding bad ones.

I think admin rights should be much more easy come and easy go.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Could not agree more. I'm still strongly of the opinion that if it were more "easy go", it would become more "easy come" but at the moment, as long as you are active, you are unlikely to lose the right. Worm^TT(talk) 11:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

... and "active" means making an edit (not even an admin action) once a year. There are a lot of current admins who are barely functioning as editors, never mind as admins. pablo 11:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

While inactive admins inflate the numbers of admins, perhaps concealing the extent of the issue for those who haven't looked at it closely, they don't actually cause any harm. And removing the admin bit from them is not a very nice thing to do and certainly not a path towards "easy come". Better to invite them back and get them excited again. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Jimmy, at the moment the only way for an admin bit to be removed from an active admin would be through arbcom, which is unpleasant for all involved. Do you have any opinions on how we might move to a more "easy go" system, whilst balancing the "not very nice thing to do" side of the equation? Worm^TT(talk) 14:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Becoming a sysop is unpleasant(RfA), why should losing the bit be pleasant? I have seen a lot of desysops recently. Who are these users that should not be an admin but the system has failed to desysop? Frankly in is far easier to lose ones admin bit than it is to get one. It took me a lot of time and effort and a lack of unwise action to become an admin. I could lose my bit today if I really wanted to. It is far easier to "go" than it is to "come".

I do remember a time when a sysop losing their bit was unheard of, but these days it is common place. The meme of "admin for life" is far from true now. Also from 8 years experience I can say that being an admin is not a big deal, you don't get extra authority or even respect(in fact you are automatically disrespected for many just because you a perceived to have authority). Anything you do that is disagreed with can be reversed just like anyone else. It is mostly routine maintenance. HighInBC 15:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I argued in a Signpost opinion piece a couple of years ago that the only workable solution is to create an elected committee with the responsibility of managing admins, with the power to give and take the bit. I still think that's the only workable solution. Looie496 (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom is an elected committee with the responsibility of taking away the bits. As for giving the bits, do you really think that should be taken away from the community? HighInBC 15:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, the community would still be in control indirectly, but yes, that's the whole point. The bottom line problem is that the RfA mechanism is too unwieldy, and no small change is going to fix that. Looie496 (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with HighInBC, it takes years to develop the trust so that an editor can pass an RfA. But if an admin overturns an AE block or Checkuser block or spends an afternoon vandalizing articles (implying that the account might be compromised), I'm pretty sure that the bit would be removed by the end of the day. An admin who has a meltdown, for whatever reason, can expect to be desysopped. Of course, after discussion, they might get the bit back but it is by no means assured. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

So, my understanding of your reply is that adminship should be easy to get (or "not a big deal") on the condition that it's easy to lose. Biblioworm 16:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

That was discussed at great length a short while ago and there was no consensus to change the way people are de-admined, as resistance from admins to keep the status quo was strong. Coretheapple (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

As I've opined before, at this point adminship is a medium-sized deal. Obtaining it, or losing it, should be neither too easy nor too hard. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Jimmy on this. Admin-for-life appointments are not the best way to go. Sole Flounder (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I'm more surprised that there are admins who stick around for 8 or 10 years. It's a pretty thankless job and now that I am one, I would expect admins to burn out more quickly than they do. It's easy to leave and become inactive, it takes determination to keep doing the job, year after year. And I'd say the same for editors, too. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Unhelpful memes associated with adminship and RfA

There are a number of unhelpful memes associated with adminship, that taken together seriously risk the project.

"Make it easier for desysopping, and RfA will sort itself out"

I would liken this belief to believing in magic. That a terribly broken process will some how be transformed by a new method of desysopping beggars belief, as it simple does not address the long stand problems with RfA, that have been going on for years yet seem insolvable by the community, despite many many attempts at reform. RfA is incredibly broken, and attempts to fix this have to address RfA directly.

"Only content creators should be made admins"

Having this belief makes adminship into a badge of honor as opposed to determining how trustworthy a particular applicant is. And to suggest that editors can not establish trustworthiness from considerable contributions to copy-editing, vandal-fighting, template editing and other types of wikignoming is deeply flawed.

"Adminship is for life"

Again, patently false, there is plenty of desysoppings for inactivity, as well as numerous desysoppings for misconduct.

"Admins returning from breaks are irresponsible"

There is no scientific basis for this claim. People bandy anecdotal "evidence", but there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that suggests active admins can make poor decisions, look at the present WP:AN and WP:A/R/C for examples of this.

"Standards at RfA are falling"

You only need to examine some RfAs from yesteryear with some recent RfAs to see how false this is. Standards at RfA have risen considerably compared to how they were in the past.

--Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of "admins for life," it would be nice to encourage older editors to apply. The only editor I know of who did go for the tools was soundly defeated because of minor temperament issues, which was sad. The advantage of older editors is that their terms in office are naturally limited by longevity. Some admins are younger than handkerchiefs I have in the drawer. Coretheapple (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You should have given the kids a blue link for handkerchief so they would know what the hell you're talking about..... Carrite (talk) 06:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Get off my lawn, you damn kids. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Are persons with advanced permissions exempt from WP:DISCLOSE?

Some weeks ago, in a discussion at Talk:Wikipediocracy, User:Alison disclosed she was site cofounder. After she declined to do so, I placed her name in a connected contributor template at the top of the page per the guideline. Alison and others immediately treated that as a joke, adding nonconflicted editors. Alison herself has edit warred to remove the template after she and others crammed it with the names of nonconflicted editors. I view this situation as an editor with advanced permissions and many friends avoiding basic COI rules. My question is, do we give editors of long and distinguished service, and advanced permissions, a de facto exemption from WP:DISCLOSE? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Coretheapple (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

No. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

A related question:

Do we disregard only the “foes” part of the COI guideline "You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family, friends or foes”? If the guideline applies to Alison, then it must apply equally to Coretheapple, who makes no bones about regarding WO as a foe, yet fights tooth and nail against being held accountable to the guideline, and refuses to share a Connected Contributor template, which he wishes to keep in situ at the WO article talk page, with Alison.

Note: There is a Connected Contributor template /COI discussion at Talk:Wikipediocracy, including a common-sense solution in the form of a notice suggested by N Ent, which Coretheapple rejected as a substitute for the Connected Contributor template; and Smallbones opened another discussion on the same topic at COIN. Writegeist (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Honest to gosh, Mr. W, I have been as clear as crystal about my total indifference about the very sparse and rather old static about my username on an external site. I have said that much worse comes at me here, where it doesn't matter either because this is my hobby. I am not here to protect an article about a site I founded. I am not here to rake in bucks, as some other editors are. yadda yadda. I don't much care for editors claiming to have COI to disrupt the discussion on that page (as you and other editors have done), but I view that as a user conduct issue, it does not make me a "foe" of the article you are protecting.

And I might add, the efforts of you and other article WP:OWNers to stick my name on that template was removed by an administrator as a violation of WP:CIVIL, and it was further explained to the bunch of you on COIN that I do not have a COI. After that, you switched tactics, came up with a special, custom-made template for that article and that article alone, which would defeat the purpose of WP:DISCLOSE by not in fact, disclosing the identity of the editors who really are conflicted. And it goes on and on and on. You guys just simply do not want WP:COI applied where your pals and your favorite site are concerned. Coretheapple (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The leitmotif in your Wikipedia hobby is the obsessional vendetta against COI and paid editing. You hate paid editing. You rage against it. You recently declared Wikipediocracy “a veritable Mission Control for paid editing, and in a very cynical fashion at that.” So it’s silly to pretend you don’t regard as opponents those whom you see as cynical perpetrators and enablers of a practice you detest—a practice you've been battling for years. Of the numerous episodes that lend the lie to the denial, two stand out: earlier this year one admin reverted your edits to MyWikiBiz (founder and owner: Gregory Kohs) as “POV additions dangerously close to a BLP vio”; and another, rolling back your BLP vio edits there, described your work on the article as “a BLP hatchet job”. Your response: “I thought my edits were pretty good. Of course, I usually feel that way.” Writegeist (talk) 08:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Core's edits to that article were approved by an RfC, so your selective rendition of history is disingenuous. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

(inserting) Sorry about that. Thank you for pointing out the RfC. Unfortunately I took the article off my watch list after that intervention by the administrators—up until then I’d viewed Coretheapple as a fellow of high principle who went in hard but fair. I regret I didn’t see the RfC until you drew my attention to it, so I didn’t know that thereby a consensual legitimacy had been conferred on what the administrators saw as BLP vios and a “hatchet job”—I assure you I’m not the kind of person to make a deliberate attempt to mislead in order to win an argument (and I know what it’s like to be on the receiving end of that). I’d go so far as to say that, even if I was, say, ridiculed and vilified in public by a hostile crowd kicking me in the nuts and yelling that I have an undeservedly high opinion of my own importance, and that I’m a petty bullshitter, a loser, a cesspit full of turds, three kind of shit in a two-shit bag, a fuckstick, a smug brainless fool, a petty incompetent, a rotten, malicious character, a nasty bullying halfwit spewing bile, or any other horrible thing you can think of, and even if those guys offered money to the first person to track me down at home, or—OK, enough, you get the idea—well, even then, and even if I thought it might serve my purpose to claim I didn’t see them as antagonists in any way or that I didn’t feel any antagonism towards them in return, I promise you I wouldn’t do that. Seriously! i wouldn't! I'd come clean, and to Hell with the consequences! That's how I roll! So although I can see how you might have thought my post was disingenuous, I assure you it wasn’t. Writegeist (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

You lost me halfway through but I do appreciate the clarification. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

You wouldn’t have got lost if you’d spotted the thread provided by Coretheapple’s detractors at Wikipediocracy. It’s the April 2015 thread “Paid Editing / Coretheapple”, from which I borrowed the epithets (targeted there at Coretheapple) that Coretheapple dismisses above as “very sparse and rather old static” and towards which he feigns “total indifference’” (who is he trying to kid?) in order to evade the very obvious facts that (1) Wikipediocracy is (one of?) his “foe(s)” (to use the COI guideline word), therefore (2) he has a COI and should not edit the article directly, and (3) if he’s determined to have a Connected Contributor (i.e. COI) template on the article talk page, he should be on it. Fair's fair. Putting it as charitably as I can, I’m perplexed by his refusal to come clean about this. The only reasonable explanation that seems to fit is that he regards the template as a badge of shame, at the same time as insisting it isn't. Writegeist (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

That's been thoroughly hashed out at COIN, with a determination that Core does not go in the template, and his placement there was removed by administrator action. I fear also you may be conflating distress with editor behavior with hostility to the article subject. Given the cross-pollination between the two that's understandable. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

That is correct. It was one of those things that never happens, which is a bad administrator call. My dear Mr. Writegeist, I used to have an essay on my talk page on paid editing. It is gone. I used to participate very actively in the discussions, still ongoing and very active, on paid editing. I no longer do. I used to patrol this page for depredations by a well known banned paid editor. Ditto. Not doing it anymore. I have been quite clear that I view this as a Jimbo/Foundation problem. I know you would love me to hate that off-wiki site, these people, these entities, but the only malice I see is what is directed at me from the editors controlling that article. Coretheapple (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

It would be great if anyone with a COI on Wikipediocracy simply ceased editing the article on it, per standard practice about people or organisations that editors have a direct association with. That includes people with roles in the site's administration, and people who feel so strongly about it that they can't edit it neutrally. No especial need to flag them all in templates, let's just have regard for apparently non-neutral editing in the article like we would on any other page. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

We have gotten to this point because Alison, the site founder, and her friends are adamant about their desire to control the article on the talk page and edit it. The template would not be an issue except for that. I'm really maxed out on the arrogance and hypocrisy I've encountered on that page. At the COIN discussion, a supporter posited that COI only matters for harmful edits. If so, what is the point of the guideline? These people have sought to manufacture a COI for Core by attacking him on the site, and I'm sure I'm next. I think Jimbo needs to state whether it is kosher for a checkuser to disregard the COI guideline. If so, I certainly won't pursue this further but it's not a great precedent. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

COI applies to anyone with a COI, regardless of whether it is positive or negative. But the CU status is a red herring. No one is suggesting there has been a misuse of the CU tool. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I assume he's referring to WP:ADMINCOND, which requires (with a straight face) that administrators "are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities." Etc. But note - aha! - that WP:COI is a guideline, not a policy. So it doesn't matter and the flabby and non-compulsory language of the guideline has been pointed out to me at the COI/N discussion. So I guess the question is whether admins need to lead by example on COI. In my experience, unrelated to this article, the answer is an emphatic no. In fact, I have found that admins with COI feel that they are privileged characters, and that they can slip-side past COI rules. After all, they know the rules, and they know how weak they are. Some example! Again, I am thinking of a much, much worse situation than this one. But the principle is the same, as is the admin not giving a shit about COI and getting oodles of support in that position. Coretheapple (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• I am not "the site founder" - please stop repeating this bare-faced lie across multiple pages. Now, it's here on on Jimbo's talk page. Also, I was not informed that I was being discussed here - not cool - Alison ^❤ 00:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Egad! I was wrong. It was a LIE with a capital L. Yes you are merely CO-founder. Changes everything. Totally. Sorry. So sorry. So very very very sorry. Coretheapple (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved administrator please step in here? This is two days past ridiculous. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 01:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

To deal with the disruptive behavior on the Wikipediocracy talk page (cramming names into the "conflicted contributor" template) that you admitted here ("I was being POINTy"). ? Yes, overdue. The only admin action taken so far on that page has been to reverse your edit putting me in the COI template, as a violation of WP:CIVIL as well as WP:COI. Coretheapple (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I was referring to the vitriolic tone you have used in this discussion, your hounding of Alison, and your battleground approach (including that rather silly point scoring you're trying to apply to me). --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 15:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, by hounding and vitriolic tone are you referring to [5] concerning a post not referring to her either directly or indirectly? By vitriolic do you mean "baying wolves" or this edit summary. And then we have this edit, reversed by an administrator as violating WP:CIVIL and WP:COI? I have more examples, from other editors, apart from your comment that you were being deliberately disruptive, but that's a start. Coretheapple (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

This^ is a prefect example of why it's been impossible to have a cool-headed discussion of the issue when you jump in, and it's why an uninvolved administrator should see to your needs. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 16:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It's difficult to have a "cool headed conversation" because you and others protecting that page use terms like "baying dogs"? Yes, possibly, that's a factor. In this very conversation, Alison referred to a minor slip ("founder" instead of "co-founder") as a "bare-faced lie." Yes, that kind of overheated rhetoric does hamper "cool-headed conversation." SB_Johnny, while we're on the subject, why do you keep personalizing the discussion while then complaining that the discussion is personalized? Coretheapple (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Another example^. You can stop now. (Also it's baying wolves, not dogs. The zoot suit may or may not have been implied.) --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 18:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know, I could quote from the Sermon on the Mount and you'd be saying "another example^." Coretheapple (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

SB Johnny, I think we get the point that you don't like Core and everything he writes is bad. Give it a rest, please. Right now the only user whose input is requested is Jimbo. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, Figureofnine, I'll duck back out. Please ping me if a real discussion starts somewhere on the subject and I'll weigh in there. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 21:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Also I noticed this post in response to a civil and serious post Figure made on Alison's talk page, trying to turn the whole thing into a joke. I can't blame FON for coming here in light of that, do you? Futile and all, but understandable. Coretheapple (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think you guys might be surprised to learn who actually were the "founders/cofounders" of that swank site. And also disappointed, since they don't have active accounts on Wikipedia that you can harass. Cla68 (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• When Alison disclosed she was co-founder of her site, she said "we all know that." Are we all supposed to know the other co-founders of her site? Coretheapple (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alison: Of course I'm not surprised Figureofnine Coretheapple didn't notify you. That's just also how he Coretheapple rolls: like how, while the template discussion was ongoing, he secretly started this discussion at WT:COI, which is clearly aimed at you and I and other people from this.  — Scott • talk 11:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC) Corrected. All these weird screen names look alike to me.  — Scott • talk 13:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Tell you what, I'm going to make a proposal. Alison and Coretheapple, leave each other alone and leave the article alone as well. Clearly, there are issues being caused, so remove yourselves from it and hopefully the drama will die down. This sort of thread is what is making Wikipedia look more and more silly to those who browse past the articles..... Mdann52 (talk) 08:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't ping Alison because she has not responded to numerous pings on this subject and, except for snark and inflammatory edit summaries, has never commented on her editing the article on a site she cofounded, except to say indignantly on her user talk page that she will continue to do so. In that position she has substantial support from the editors controlling that article. Core is incomplete on one point: Alison as well as SB Johnny were reversed by an admin for playing games with the template on that page. That kind of behavior is why I asked for an opinion from Jimbo. (And contrary to Alison's response above it is not forum shopping to come here.) Are people of advanced permissions expected to set an example on COI? Is it reasonable to expect that administrators will not directly edit articles on subjects with which they have a direct connection? I would like Jimbo to address this please. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course it was forum shopping. The same points are already being discussed at Talk:Wikipediocracy, User talk:Alison, WT:COI and WP:COIN. Having not liked the response received at any of those venues, you decided to raise them here for a fifth bite at the cherry... WJBscribe (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

This is where matters stand at Alison's talk page. Productive! At WT:COI, Alison came by to scream at me for referring to her, which I did not. It was nice to see a direct statement from that account, as ordinarily she only communicates by edit summary. At COIN, the only editor on the Alison team to make a substantive posting was you, and you said in sum and substance that COI was voluntary, only mattered as icing on caKe in the case of edits violating policy, and essentially that it has all the force of an essay. So that's where we stand. As for this discussion, my experience is that wild horses wouldn't drag Jimbo into a discussion such as this, but there's no harm in trying. And no, it is not forum shopping. It is never forum shopping to post on this page. Ever.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC) Of course, I'm sure you can look into the Wikilaw books and find an escape clause in there somewhere, as you have striven to do with WP:COI. Coretheapple (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe we've communicated prior to the discussions in relation to Wikipediocracy, but I find your approach here combative and unhelpful. Wikipedia is not a battleground for you to work through whatever issues you have with other editors/websites. Read back some of your posts and tell me if you think they set an appropriate collaborative tone. Because I disagree with you, you have dismissed me as part of "the Alison team". I have pointed out that WP:COI is a guideline should be applied with common sense, which you choose to represent as me saying that it has "all the force of an essay". Please do me the courtesy of not grossly misrepresenting my position. Your final straw is now to suggest, even before I have responded to your latest point, that I am going to engage in some elaborate form of wikilawyering. WJBscribe (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I've said four or five times that there is no Wikipediocracy "battleground" between me and that website, only that which is in the imaginations of people like yourself, the non-members of the Alison team. I know why you've chosen to misrepresent my concerns about puffery and COI in that article, and I imagine that is pretty much all you can do because there is nothing else to say. The COI guideline is clear, and your efforts to wikilawyer it so that it does not apply in a clearcut situation, ditto. Coretheapple (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

WJBscribe, as you've just experienced, using strawman rejoinders is a favorite debate tactic of Wikipedians. Cla68 (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Quite well established that it isn't. Note the FOF in the Banning Policy arbitration. I didn't come for anything more than an opinion from Jimbo. But while we are here, I have a proposed solution: instead of her friends going on the offensive and coming up with reasons for her not to comply, Alison complies with WP:COI. She confines her contributions in that article to the talk page. She makes the other disclosures required by the guideline, on the article talk page and her user page. That would resolve matters. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

As WJBscribe points out, after you didn't get what you wanted at COIN, you came here to get it: This dispute has become so ridiculous, and the number of administrators involved so high, that I've thrown it on Jimbo's lap. We can carve out a special exemption for Alison but let it be Jimbo's doing. And you claim not to be forum shopping. Now who's being disingenuous?  — Scott • talk 15:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you think figureofnine is trying to "get," as both the main COIN discussion and the subset were both initiated by other editors. And note above the "never forum shopping" quote from Jimbo above. Coretheapple (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring the personalities (please), it is pretty simple, really. COI disclosure belongs on an article talk page, where the COI editor has participated, this is true even if they are an admin. Disclosing COI is what we want on our talk pages. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

This rewrite of the connected contributor template is what the Wikipediocracy article regulars want on the talk page in lieu of the standard template. I think that's what Figure might have meant when he used the word "ridiculous" to describe the degeneration of the situation. Coretheapple (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

That, uh, creative one-off, makes no sense. Its, 'everyone has a POV' disclaimer - is not informative of anything and thus useless or worse - we already know everyone has a POV. Just use article talk templates, like any other talkpage - Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

That uninformative template is on the page, along with the standard one, and there are periodic edit wars to have the standard one taken off. Coretheapple (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You say "use article talk templates." Hello? That's what everyone is screaming about. They no like. They like their own. Coretheapple (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Tell them to stop screaming, and just use the template that discloses the User's COI - remind them we are here to provide information, not legal disclaimer. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Look, here's the timeline: first they accepted the standard template, but only if I was in it. They were reverted on that by an admin. Smallbones took it to COIN. You and others told them no. Then someone came up with this ridiculous template to replace the standard one. Then there was asn edit war over removing of the standard template. Then Figure came here. That's the situation at this point in time. Coretheapple (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: Since you are already participating in the COIN discussion on this article you may already have a sense of the kind of unreasonableness prevalent among the editors there . As you know, one can tell COI editors about the guideline until one is blue in the face and it doesn't matter if they are intent on disregarding it. In this instance, the majority of the editors are so wrapped up in the subject that they have declared their COI. Their position is that their COI should not be disclosed, however, they're against that. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Figureofnine, why is it so important to have this debate in three places? pablo 13:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

This is the first debate on this COI issue that I initiated. The COIN debates were launched by Core and Small. The talk page discussion of the custom COI template was launched by NE Ent. If you read my first post here you can see why I came here. We are having a discussion in now three places because of one administrator's refusal to abide by the COI guideline. Yes I feel that is something deserving of Jimbo input. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Because what it looks like is a group of editors (you, "Core" and "Small") continuing to raise the same issue at different venues in the hope of eventually getting the answer you are looking for (which I assume is not the answer(s) you have already got). pablo 14:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

FON naively believes that because there has been administrator misconduct that Jimbo is going to give a hoot. Please be kind to him. I once came here because I felt that there was some kind of evil machination going on in an article and good heavens! The silence from Mr. Wales was deafening. One must learn these things firsthand I guess. Coretheapple (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

There's really not much here for Jimmy to comment on as it stands. There probably is a philosophical issue of the sort he comments on buried under all of this, but it's rather hard to see the trees through the weeds at this point. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 15:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I can put the issue even more simply than FON. Does Jimbo approve of this rewrite of the connected contributor template? Is it ever OK? Well do you, Jimbo? @Jimbo Wales: Not a binding opinion but it is the one FON wants. Coretheapple (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I am tempted to request this article be placed under discretionary sanctions. There's no way neutral editors are going to contribute to this war zone. Gamaliel (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Well have at it. Give in to your temptation. There seems to be quite an anti-Wikipediocracy animus going on, although from what I can see the article seems OK and in fact would benefit embiggening from the multiple s0urces covering the subject. pablo 21:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

There's plenty of animus on display from both sides. Gamaliel (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Any steps that will reduce the lack of civility and personalization of the discussion, in multiple venues, would be welcome. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom election results live

Hi Jimbo (and watchers),

Just a note to say the ArbCom election have now concluded, and results have been posted. 9 Arbs have been elected in total, 8 on two-year terms and 1 on a one-year term. You can review the results in full here.

For the Election Commission, Mdann52 (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Those elected are:

Two-year terms: Casliber, Opabinia regalis, Keilana, Drmies, Callanecc, Kelapstick, GorillaWarfare, Kirill Lokshin and

Gamaliel One-year term

Congrats to all. The voters have spoken and we've got a good group. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Just to note that a third of those elected are female candidates Keilana ,GorillaWarfare ,Drmies and Opabinia regalis.The fact they have been elected to the highest decision making body that shows that is there no real gender bias for fully qualified candidates.Interestingly they appear to be the only 3 female candidates out of 20 which would be 100% success for female candidates. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Erm, I think you'll find Drmies is male --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 07:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out his User:Drmies lists the User in Female Wikipedians category .My apologies to Drmies for my error.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmmmm, maybe he's on to something — we can solve the gender gap the way that Colbert solved the elephant shortage... Carrite (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say that the election of three women to arbcom, along with others who refuse to accept harassment of women - those that Carrite calls "safe spacers" - is an indication that there has been some gender bias in arbcom decisions (as perceived by the voters) and the voters said "we're not going to put up with this any longer." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Possibly. Or it could be an indication that they were three really good candidates who would have been elected in any year they ran. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Which was great. We now have 4 women Arbs, is that a record? Doug Weller (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure you’re counting right? I believe the next year’s committee will have five. I agree with Smallbones that the results appear to represent a repudiation of the Gender Gap, Gamergate, and Lightbreather decisions. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I see Delta Quad, Opabinia regalis, Keilana and GorillaWarfare on next year's arbitration committee unless someone, like Drmies, is playing around with gender expectations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe that dastardly Drmies had sneakily re-gendered his opponents for an easier ArbCom ride?? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein: I think you may be thinking "two current ones and three just elected," but inadvertently counting GorillaWarfare twice as she's in both groups. Newyorkbrad Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Slaps head. Yep! MarkBernstein (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Saying GorillaWarfare is twice the woman Opabinia regalis is? NE Ent 01:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

True! ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Does this mean my votes count double? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems like Kevin Gorman's Gender Gap mailing list voting bloc plan[6] worked pretty well, except for himself, but atleast all the female candidates got in. Perhaps they should re-do the GamerGate ArbCom case, now with an orthodox feminist approach. --Pudeo' 03:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

What, do you think they're gonna ban everybody twice or something? Carrite (talk) 04:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

In all seriousness, that case and the GGTF one have been cited several times as examples how the Wikipedia community doesn't understand harassment of women and sexism. So I would guess they would unblock the female editors (despite evidence that they were disruptive) but keep the other side of the fracas banned. --Pudeo' 06:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

What's your point? The huge influx of women onto the Arbitration Committee means that past arbitrations are to be redone with an orthodox feminist approach? (what even is an "orthodox feminist approach"?) pablo 09:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

You can always tell an orthodox feminist—we're the ones with the peyos. GorillaWarfare (talk) 09:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

That's kind of what I was thinking, big black hat and a copy of The Second Sex under your arm. pablo 10:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that it says a lot about both the environment on Wikipedia and about your views that you find that an election resulting in a total of four women on a fifteen-person Arbitration Committee to be so shocking that it could only be the result of bloc voting. GorillaWarfare (talk) 09:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, women are roughly 50% of the world population, which is no doubt the result of orthodox feminist influences and bloc family planning. Gamaliel (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Well, I voted for all three of the women who were elected (and had previously voted for two of them when they stood in the past), but it had nothing whatsoever to do with any gender issues (and certainly not any off-wiki block vote attempt of which I was not a part). I supported them purely because I thought they were among the top nine candidates. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

What you all may have missed, is that many of us were not aware of the gender of the candidates when we voted. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Gender should not matter. To many of us it doesn't. — Ched :  ?  22:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)