User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Gender balance

Ratio of newly registered female to male editors on English Wikipedia over time

As the globe turns into International Women's day, you may be interested to know that the gender balance for new, preference identifying, editors has been showing a steady, if somewhat volatile, increase. The average percentage of new editors who currently identify as female in their preferences, over the last 18 months is 21.22%.

The graph shows a slightly different statistic: the ratio of female-to-male (new) editors, again using only those identified in their preferences. Here, of course, the ideological target would be 100%, rather than 50%, but the relationship is not linear.

While by no means certain, it is likely that this is an underestimate of the ratio, as females are taught not to gender identify on-line.

The provisional figures this is based on will be available on a Meta sub page shortly.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC).

About how many new editors identify preference? If it is 50% or even only 30%, these figures would likely be useful. But if it's only 5% or 10%, probably much less so. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The % varies over time, peaking at round about 6% in 2012, and decreasing to significantly less than 1 today , strictly speaking of accounts, not editors. Nonetheless the absolute numbers are large enough that the central limit theorem enables us to draw statistically significant conclusions. Full figures are now available. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC).

This is certainly an interesting stat, and even if we find out it's biased it could be useful in practice (e.g. if the bias is constant as a %age). In general, looking for new ways to estimate participation of different types of users on Wikipedia should be encouraged: we need to know something about who our editors and readers are. But I don't buy into the CLT working here. The folks who answered would have to be randomly selected for the CLT to apply. It, of course, would be nice to have a story on why the selection method introduces a bias. I'm not sure I believe this particular story, but it might work like this: most male editors assume "male" is normal, so they don't see any benefit in self-identifying as male. The only folks who self-identify "have something to prove", so they might be a mix of militant mens-rights folks, feminists, and perhaps even men self-identifying as women (expressing frustration perhaps). In any case bias could be introduced by other means of selection of who reports.

Another means of estimating %women editors might be textual analysis. Women use different vocabulary than men. I'm no expert on this, but ... (with lots of assumptions regarding different ages, nationalities, etc) if you could analyze the text on user pages or user talk pages and split a sample of active editors into categories identified as women, as men, and likely a group that can't be identified by vocabulary. Of course you could get a lot of people angry at you doing this! My stats are getting rusty (and I've never worked with textual analysis) but it's probably done using discriminant analysis or factor analysis. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

To be clear: is the ratio reported in the graph above is F/M or F/(F+M)? MarkBernstein (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The graph is, as captioned, and mentioned in the text, F/M - which I find the more useful figure. The average percentage of 21.22% is F/(F+M), reported here because that is the way the figure has been reported historically, and in which the WMF/Sue Gardner/Jimmy set targets. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC).

Just an aside about this, this is an article in today's Phnom Penh Post about Khmer Wikipedia and a campaign to get more women's and women-authored articles up.Skookum1 (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

(Website currently off-line, http error 522.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC).

• These numbers are in rough alignment with a recent stat given at the December 2014 WMF metrics meeting involving results of a survey conducted of 96,000 Wikipedia users in 11 countries of the so-called Global South — conducted in 16 languages (pg. 62). A total of 47,000 people ended up completing the survey, which ran both on desktop and mobile platforms. The survey showed that 21% of readers and 20% of contributors identified themselves as female (with another 2% declining to identify either as male or female and 1% selecting "other.") (pg. 64). There is definitely a gender gap but it appears to be something in the neighborhood of 80m:20f rather than 90m:10f. Carrite (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Women's Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, in honor of International Women's Day, at the Wikimedia Foundation offices in San Francisco, March 8, 2015. Photo by Jim Heaphy.

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• There are a large number of edit-a-thons taking place all over the world this weekend. These are opportunities to do two things - welcome new editors in connection with International Women's Day, and write and improve biographies of notable women, and articles of interest to women. My wife and I will attend one such event in San Francisco tomorrow. (Sorry, Carrite, as I know that you distrust all that emanates from San Francisco). I have expanded one woman's biography today, and am drafting another woman's biography that I hope to move to article space tomorrow. Thanks, Rich Farmbrough, for the trend chart. The key is to welcome and assist new editors who are here in good faith, and also for experienced editors to edit in good faith to address our well-documented systemic biases. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• I have always believed that welcoming and assisting new users is important, I am not convinced that it will make a huge difference to the gender balance, since we should retain a significant number of additional male editors - which of course is a good thing too.
• Addressing content issues is another matter, and, despite two pieces of good research, one where we still are in a state of ignorance. The proposed new "views per page" which attempts to distinguish between human and automatic page views will help with this.
• I hope to have a preliminary list of ODNB articles on women uploaded shortly - if anyone is looking for something to do, there will be many red-links and a lot of additional information avaiable onmost of the blue links.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC).

• Thanks [{Ping|Carrite}} for mentioning the "Global South" report, and you are correct that the editor numbers align generally with this result. There was a survey of Internet use in the US "way back when" (i.e. around the time of the WMF/UN University survey that gave the 12% figure still cited today) which showed that readership in the US was even split M/F (and that the figures WMF/UN had promulgated were skewed by selection bias, and should have been around 16%, IIRC).

Consequently it appears that we have two very different models, which I would interpret as follows:

1. In the GN women and girls are as confident in using and enabled to use the Internet and Wikipedia as men and boys in the GN, but much less confident in editing.
2. In the GS women and girls are significantly less confident/enabled to use the Internet and Wikipedia, but those that do are almost as confident in editing Wikipedia as men and boys in the GS.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC).

• Despite this, Wikipedia Gender Gap activists on the Gendergap-l mailing list continue to propagate the apparent error that the female editor level of English Wikipedia is "around 10% according to the most recent editor survey." To reiterate: no, that is wrong. The actual Gender Gap is approximately 80-20. Carrite (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow! Gee Willikers!! Hold on to your hat!!! The various studies agree female editor participation is somewhere in the teens? Well, damnit, just get those good ole GamerGate boys here, I'm a sure they'll have that gap down to zero in no time. AnonNep (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly why the Gender Gap Task Force/Gendergap-l is not to be taken seriously. Instead of starting with serious analysis of the magnitude of the problem, followed by testing of ideas of how to solve it, followed by cost-benefit analysis of putting those ideas into practice on a large scale, we time and time again see a facile assumption of the Worst Case Scenario (ignoring contrary evidence), followed by gender war rhetoric and throwing of verbal petrol bombs, accompanied by grant-writing for money-money-money for unproven programs. WMF is complicit in this by allowing the GGTF/GG-l to put the money cart before the analysis horse. Carrite (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

My long standing recommendation for those who complain women aren't *statistically* editing enough, is for those men to stop editing. This has two benefits, first it is clear they have little of value left to contribute, either for the encyclopedia or for themselves and therefore it will move them on to greener pastures. Secondarily, the less they edit, the smaller that statistical gap will be helping to resolve their moaning. 62.254.196.200 (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• It's not just the mailing list. The recent panel discussion at WVU used the 12% figure, this article cites 10% (and extrapolates that "over 80% ... are young, white, predominantly child-free men" actually 51% are over 30 for starters). Think Progress cites 13% "according to a recent study", presumably the UNMERIT uncorrected figures from 2010. It is not helped that out article Gender bias on Wikipedia has the 9/1/80 split in a misleading graph.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC).

If one accepts the premise that women feel less welcome than men then it is likely that there will be a selection bias in any group of people that self selects to reveal their gender. It is very possible that the ratio of female editors is higher than it appears due to men being more likely to self identify gender than women. Still, even if you take that into account a rise is still a rise. Chillum 17:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I've never weighed in on this issue since it's of no importance to me, which is what I'm stopping by to say: "Who cares what percentage of editors are female?" Even if it is important--which I realize it is to many--you have no way to compile realistic statistics since so many editors do not reveal their gender. I sort of do--by saying I answer to "Grandma" halfway down my user page--but I'm generally referred to as "he." Doesn't bither me a bot. Who knows how many of us don't feel a need to shout, "Hey, I'm a woman; take note!" or, "Over 55 here, woot-woot!"

The hostility I experienced as a new user had nothing to do with gender, but with newbie-biters. Most of the biters assumed I was male. Yopienso (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

As far as Grandma's question "who cares?", I think we should all care. If Wikipedia editors are predominantly young men, then our content will be predominantly focused on the interests of young men. We won't be a true global encyclopedia. We'll be leaving out many of the topics of interest to say, 75%, of the world's population.

Perhaps somebody can list or link the statistical evidence on Wikipedia's editorship. I probably haven't kept up as much as I should have. But I have the impression that there was an attempt at a census-type survey about 5 years ago, and a couple of attempts since, as well as some indirect type evidence such as Farmbrough's above. And my general impression of everything I've seen is that women make up about 10-20% of the editorship, with a large margin of error in any particular study. Stats is not something we can fake, or decide by argumentation or consensus. Solid work needs to be done. Is there any reason that the WMF does not do a proper survey of a proper random sample? Please forget the old "ask everybody" census-type approach. Trying to get everybody involves too many problems, e.g. selection bias, cost, and inability to resurvey every couple of years. Concentrating on a much smaller random sample of active editors would allow much more accurate work to be done. It would allow updates every year or two, so that we can see if we are making progress. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that "our content is predominantly focused on the interests of young men." I find a great deal that is of interest to me; I just ignore the stuff I'm not interested in, as I assume the young men--and everybody else--likewise do. Yopienso (talk) 06:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it's as easy to say our content is focused on Indian corporate spam.... we are not on paper, there is not limit to the potential 'size'.... subjects with no article (and admittedly, notable women are apparently underrepresented) is a far more meaningful concept than 'subjects with an article'.... the omissions are what we should care about. Revent^talk 07:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Please name a notable woman who does not have a WP article. Yopienso (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

There's no need to shout, Yopienso. I think you may share a common misunderstanding about the composition of the Wikipedia community. We don't need more female editors because they will create more articles about notable females. We need more female editors because we need to reflect more than just the worldview of young white males. Women may not only have different views on what is important, they may also see things from a different perspective. You've been here for a long time - you know that the same facts can be presented in a number of different ways. If you want to have a neutral encyclopedia, you want to have as much diversity in the community as you can. (By the way, to answer your question off the top of my head, Wikipedia has no biography of Leona Beldini. I'm sure there are many many more, but that's not the point.) Cheers! Mr Muffler (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you think it's mere coincidence there was no response for 24 hours and then a response in half an hour when I raised my voice? But, thanks for answering!

I was responding to the claim "subjects with no article (and admittedly, notable women are apparently underrepresented)".

Leona Beldini, notable woman: a petty crook. Hmmm, I guess she may be notable for being bad. None of those crooks are notable (See the lists on the article page.) except those that were independently notable. Deputy mayors don't seem to cut the mustard.Yo Pienso (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

After so many editathons to add all the missing female scientists, artists, etc I imagine that there are far fewer missing articles than there were a few years ago. But that is only a symptom of the problem and correcting it does little or nothing to deal with the root cause (the gender imbalance in the Wikipedia community). As for deputy mayors on Wikipedia, I guess being deputy mayor of Jersey City, New Jersey is probably not as notable as being deputy mayor of New York City (like Rudy Washington) or a world renowned city such as Launceston, Tasmania (like Jeremy Ball). Anyway, you asked, so I answered. If you don't want to find out why Beldini is notable, I'm not bothered. Mr Muffler (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Back to the data

Self-identifying female new editors as a percentage of total self-identifying new editors

Since 2001

Since 2004

I'd like to go back to the data—many thanks to User:Rich Farmbrough for making it so readily available. Looking at the data, I'm struck by a couple of things. First of all, I'm not sure that a linear model really fits here. When I tried to reproduce the simple linear regression performed by Rich, the adjusted R² was fairly low, at 0.6484. More intuitively, the data seem to show that female editorship (as measured by available metrics) was fairly stable around 10% until 2009, when it suddenly jumped to ~20% where it has remained. I added a smoothed spline (in red), which again suggests the relationship here is not really linear. These data don't lead me to believe that female editorship is steadily increasing; instead, they lead me to ask: what happened in 2009?

I went back to the data and truncated/removed all of the data points before 2004 (bottom panel). It's a bit arbitrary, but I think it's reasonable since a) the sample sizes before 2004 are tiny, and b) 2004 marked a huge increase in Wikipedia's popularity, readership, and editorship with attendant fundamental changes in the community. Interestingly, the linear relationship becomes much stronger with the truncated data, at least as measured by R², probably as a result of excluding a bunch of 0's from 2001–2003. But once again, the relationship appears to be bimodal rather than linear, split around the year 2009.

The final thing that jumps out about these data is that they suddenly become very noisy around mid-2013. The increase in unexplained variance is really quite striking, since variance was remarkably low up until 2013. I don't know why the data suddenly become so noisy, but this implies that we should be extremely careful about drawing inferences from short-term changes in this metric, since there's a very high risk of over-interpreting statistical noise rather than responding to actual trends.

I don't have much to add to the points raised above about the metrics. Obviously, we're making the very large assumption that the sample of editors who choose to self-identify is representative of the population of editors as a whole. I love the central limit theorem as much as the next guy, but I don't think that large sample size and the CLT can overcome inherent selection and response biases. Of course, there are no better data available, and I hugely appreciate the work that Rich and others have done with what we have—I just want to make sure we're interpreting these data with the appropriate caveats. MastCell ^Talk 17:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I share your doubts about a linear fit, but since my graphing program (Excel if it was on my laptop, open office if it was on my desktop) gave that trend line for free I left it in. There appear to be two jumps. I have posited that the 2009 jump is related to the introduction of edit filters, which meant far less vandalism, and consequently recent changes patrollers being more relaxed. The later jump may relate to things like Teahouse, editathons, coverage of gender balance, etc.

The volatility is curious, but can perhaps be explained by class registrations and larger editathons. If a large number of students or volunteers are following a step-by-step process that includes registering gender, then the gender balance of that class will affect the month it is in. Possibly sock farms might influence them too, but I find that unlikely.

As to the question of whether these are good samples, it is difficult to say, but I can think of one systemic reason it may give a high F/M ratio (classes/editathons), and two to suggest it may be low (desire to avoid identifying as female, to avoid negative consequence, and lack of desire to explore all the preferences options).

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC).

This looks to me as if changes to the Preferences/User Profile entry form (or the relevant help file) may have had an effect. The following was added in early 2009:

"Gender: This option allows you to select a gender (male or female), or unspecified. This option is designed for languages where, unlike English, words, and therefore interface text, can change depending on your gender. As such, this option is not greatly useful for English users at present."

How was gender entered before that? The comment about gender being irrelevant for English can't have been very helpful, either. Does anyone know when it was changed to the present form, asking whether the user would like to be addressed as he/she etc. Wasn't there also a (somewhat discouraging) warning that the information would be public? --Boson (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC) PS: I see there is now a message (in small print) "This information will be public." I believe it used to (somewhere) say something like "... but not easily found". --Boson (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Good find. I haven't tracked down the source of the phraseology yet, search doesn't find it in a mediawiki page. I'm checking translatewiki, but there are 24k+ mediawiki messages! Design flaw somewhere I think. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC).

MediaWiki:Prefs-help-gender seems relevant, but the wording looks like the old wordning you refer to. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC).

It appears that these graphs misrepresent the proportion of women by at least(exactly?) two orders of magnitude. The graphs' claim that less than .25%, or one in 400, new users self-identify as female rather than male is obvious nonsense. Is this just an axis labeling issue?--Noren (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You're correct that the y-axis label should read "proportion" rather than "percentage". These are proportions, so 0.2 = 20%, and so on. MastCell ^Talk 17:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I think a linear model might be the best one to use here. While you could construct a more complex model which fits the data better there is the problem of over fitting the data. What I would probably do is fit three straight lines, upto 2009, 2009- mid 2013 and mid 2013 onwards. It looks like there are three distinct regimes to the data, making them not really comparable. Is there any reason for the jump in 2013?--Salix alba (talk): 20:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedians should come out of their closets

IMHO the main reason for gender disbalance is not the mythical hostility towards women on wiki (as 95+% of editors do not reveal their gender this factor could only affect less than 5% anyway). The main reason is peer pressure in the real world, there wiki editing is somehow acceptable for male students, barely acceptable for female students, weakly unacceptable for adult family men (considered a strange but harmless hobby) and totally unacceptable for adult married women with family and kids. The idea that a mother of a family spends a few hours a day not earning some wages, not attending for the kids, not tending the home but editing wiki - looks like absolutely atrocious to the society. We need good role model both males and especially females. And we especially need adult professional family males and desperately need happy professional adult females with families. How often have you seen a female wikipedian announcing birth of a child? We must press editors to reveal their identities. Unless special circumstances (e.g. life in a dictatorship couuntry, etc.) editors should work under real names. All Arbitrators/Checkusers/Oversighters should have their real life identity and basic bio revealed. All new admin applications should be accompanied by real names and biographies and, yes, I am sure most !voters would give women especially adult women with families some preferences. Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure that the 'men' who edit wikipedia are being fed grapes from lustrous virgins as we speak. Could someone remind me why I (p.s. as a woman) would want to reveal my gender when I don't want simply to please some gender identity demagogues of questionable competence and reputation? Why would I ask the same of a man? This suggestion is underthought and uninspiring. Perhaps the childish feminists of wikipedia, who seem to be self-guilt tripping white men need to man up and respect that one of the reasons they don't see many women editing wikipedia is because they wish to turn every woman into a juvenile. Nobody wants to be special objects. This is not acceptable, fundamentally anti-feminist and embarassing to everyone involved. 62.254.196.200 (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

If I could do it over, I sure wouldn't pick a gender-specific user id or otherwise identify as female. I've experienced the same issues that most people complain of, plus stalking, tagteams, mansplaining, and the endless accusations that my politics, because they are actually congruent with the demographic center's preferences[1] instead of skewed to the right as the major political parties skew in their desperate attempt to garner campaign contributions from moneyed interests,[2][3][4] are somehow out of the mainstream. Male-identifying users with my point of view do not, as far as I can see, have to deal with that bullcrap. EllenCT (talk) 16:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Ya lost me with use of the pejorative "mansplaining." Don't be "femhearing" me now... Carrite (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I added a wikilink to aid your comprehension. EllenCT (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Does that mean you wiksplained it? Formerip (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you (Ellen) think that if you would indicate that your technical background makes your understanding of clumsy wiki-syntax and arcane wikirules to be complete (wish I could say so myself) you would still be bothered with offering of help? Maybe you could benefit from some opening of your real life background. Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Alex, I don't mind being talked down to on technical issues because I realize how difficult it is to discern what an editor does not yet understand from a few limited interactions. The reason I use the perjorative to which Carrite objects is because of the several instances where enthusiastic opposition from editors with primary sources on content disputes where I've gone to the trouble to find literature reviews never have involved a single female editor, even when there were female editors on the other side of the issue. If you can show me how to get the guys to stop countering secondary sources with COI-sponsored primary sources, on Talk:Tax policy and economic inequality in the United States for example, then I would be happy to say more about my background and life experiences. But for now, I would simply prefer to not dignify those WP:COMPETENCE and/or WP:IDHT issues with continued engagement, because the enthusiasm without regard for the rules frankly makes me wonder what other rules they are willing to break to suppress the secondary literature's conclusions with which they disagree. EllenCT (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, you missed something there, I'm well aware of the pejorative neologism "mansplaining." See: Pejorative. Happy to help. Carrite (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I ,for one, am certainly glad that I have not made anything about my real life identity very public. And given the lack of concern from the arbcom about the attacks on those wikipedia editors who did have their public lives targeted because of their Wikipedia editing strikes me as solid gold proof that I would strongly advise against ANYONE doing so, particularly women or people with children. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the project as the whole is hindered by unnecessary secrecy over identity of major contributors. Corporations spend billions on so called team-building efforts so to encourage their employees to share their informal lives. Most major charities do the same. They maybe ignorant but not stupid. Currently Wikiediting is seen as a shameful activity suitable only for primary school students (preferably male). This perception hurts the project greatly. Luck of positive role models (particularly adult women) hurts us internally. Difficulty in spotting conflicts of interests arising from the identity secrecy hurts us greatly. I am editing for almost 15 years under my real name, and only once regretted, then some idiot with IP geolocated 10 km from my home was making threats about me. Still under real name helped to clear my name over accusations of COI (some very painful), so in long run was beneficial. Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You may consider anonymity "unnecessary". I consider my anonymity on Wikipedia the reason that my family has not been subjected to hateful death threats and SWATTING. When you share personal info with a co-worker you are not sharing it with the whole fucking world that is full of crazies who do things like target Wikipedia editors they decide they dont like.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose this principle, and would prefer if physical world factors were excluded from the consideration of Wikipedia editors. That was one of the original goals of cyberspace, if one can remember. To break down the walls of reality and replace them with an open space for everyone, regardless of factors that one cannot control, such as the imaginary constructs of sex, race, gender, and so forth. The internet has not worked out that way, but that's what it was meant to be, and what it should strive to be. This demand for people to make a decision as to whether they consider themselves a woman or a man is offensive and absurd. Many of us, for example, consider ourselves neither. What are we to do, then? This obsession with imaginary boundaries, to translate connotations attached to physical principles into the immaterial digital realm, seems to be an attempt by certain people to hold onto a stability of existence that simply does not exist. Neoliberalism really has accomplished its goal, hasn't it? That is, to balkanise the proletariat in every possible way. Instead of allowing the internet to become a space of pleasure in unity and commonality, it has become an expression of artificial difference, controlled by corporations and other unsavoury groups.

Regardless, I find this whole "controversy", if one can call it that, absurd. The neoliberal authorities that control this encylopaedia have no desire other than to balkanise the proletariat, even in a space that is meant to be based on collaboration. They struggle to enforce imaginary boundaries in a space where those boundaries lack visual representation. More and more, we see this battle playing out. The battle, itself, is exactly what the neoliberal authorities want to see. The more they can divide the proletariat, the less the proletariat can fight back against corporate capture. That's what the heart of the matter is. "Come out of one's closet", and be captured by the camera of corporate surveyors and data-mongers. One must recognise that one is in a corporate space, a space where one produces capital for the ruling class without reaping any benefits for oneself. The producer-consumer, the person who carries the burden of the neoliberal class. That is what this encylopaedia is, of course. A factory for content, data, &c., all of which is produced by unwitting participants for the sake of the gain of a few. We are kept occupied by both producing content and consuming it, and by doing so, entrench their dominance. That's not to say there are no other benefits to the project, and of course those are often the reasons that editors remain. However, until the proletariat can break down the imaginary barriers prescribed by the ruling class as a method of dominance, there can be no true freedom or unity in human singularity. It is our duty, then, to stop this continued balkanisation and madness. It is our duty to say no to categories that do not exist, such as "man" and "woman". It is our duty, then, to defend this space from further encroachment by corporate authorities. It may already be too late, but it does not hurt to be a martyr for one's cause. RGloucester — ☎ 19:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• OK, Alex, I'll take the bait. Short answer: no. Long answer: Do we really want Wikipedians to be even more easily doxxed and targeted by online trolls? No.

And if the situation is as you claim and women are ashamed of editing here, requiring them to divulge their real identities would only exacerbate the issues. Many people edit here under anonymous names because they would be ashamed if their real identities were known. KonveyorBelt 19:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

There needs to be some accountability for behavior on WP, but with complete anonymity, it will never happen. I edit under my real name and have never had any problems online, but I attribute this to staying away from controversial articles. That's not to say Ive never had problems with other Wikipedians, both male and female, but I pick my battles. I have to laugh at the mansplaining complaint though. Essentially it is a man arguing with a woman the way he argues with other men. In reality, he is treating a woman equally to a man. Seems to me that we women need to develop counter-tactics more effective than demand that everyone act the way we want to them to.Thelmadatter (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Why focus on editors instead of readership?

I don't understand why all the focus is on the low participation rate of women when it comes to editing. Above, someone quotes the statistics that "21% of readers and 20% of contributors" identify as women. Therefore, there is no gender imbalance when it comes to who decides to edit - women are not being scared away from contributing. The same percentage of them who come to Wikipedia to read become editors as do men. Recently the lunch conversation among my coworkers (in a high tech field) turned toward reading habits as kids. Nearly ever male reported reading an encyclopedia for fun as a child, but I was the only woman who did so. Obviously, this is only anecdotal, but along with the statistics, it suggests that if you want more women to contribute to Wikipedia, you first need to get more women to be interested in reading an encyclopedia. Deli nk (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

You may be absolutely right. Do notice, however, that the statistic you cite is for the "Global South", in the US, for example, readership (I beleive the question was something like "have you used Wikipedia in the past month?") from a large independent survey showed roughly equal numbers of males and females using Wikipedia. Of course the way it is used may also vary by gender. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC).

Thanks for the response. I'm a bit surprised at the disparity in the survey results, though maybe I shouldn't be if the questions were worded very differently. I'd be interested in learning more about the way Wikipedia use might vary depending on gender. Deli nk (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure which surveys other people are referring to, but I believe the main survey that showed roughly equal participation by men and women (as readers) was based on a representative sample of Americans (with an online connection and a landline telephone), which incidentally also asked about Wikipedia usage, and was carried out by an established social/market research organization (Pew), while all the other studies were based on "opt-in", self-selecting samples. Personally, I think it would be much, much better if the Foundation commissioned Pew (or another established organization that routinely performs research for people who bet money on the results) to perform a similar survey of Wikipedia readers and editors based on a representative population sample. Doing our own studies with self-selecting samples may be much cheaper but it seems a bit like looking for the lost key in the bushes, in the dark, when you know you dropped it in the road, under the streetlight. --Boson (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

PS: I would imagine it would be simplest to add a few questions (e.g. Wikipedia editing: frequency, topic and medium) to an existing omnibus survey on Internet usage. --Boson (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I can confirm that the Pew 2008 research which covered readership was used to correct the Wikipedia 2008 readers and editors survey (and apologies if I referred to that as the 2010 survey elsewhere) by Shaw and Hill in 2013. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC).

Confidential poll right here :)

Throw a coin twice, if the first outcome is heads then write down your sex, if it is tails, then if the second throw is heads write down "male" for your sex and "female" if it is tails. If the fraction of females is pf, and the fraction of males is pm = 1-pf, then the expectatio value of the the fraction of "females" in the answers is 1/4 + 1/2 pf, allowing one to estimate pf. Count Iblis (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

1. Female . Count Iblis (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
2. I am totally confused. Jehochman ^Talk 02:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
3. My coin says either "Reply hazy try again" or "You may already have won!" Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
4. My coin landed on its edge. So...? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
5. I think my coin will land eventually, but I'm currently in a very low gravity environment, so this could take years. ϢereSpielChequers 09:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

   And then it will probably bounce a few times and land in a dark corner where it can't transmit the results back to you. Jehochman ^Talk 14:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

   ^I saw what you did there Pedro :  Chat  10:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

6. My coin turned into a six-sided die, bounced a few hundred times and landed on Jumanji. Neutron (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
7. How far should I throw the coin? I'd like to get it back if possible. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
8. I can't actually be bothered to toss a coin. But, as far as I can see, the bigger the sample size, the more reliable the result will be, so I thought I should at least register a response. Formerip (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
9. Male, but I used a two-headed coin. --B (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

I strongly approve of the motivating principles of this poll, but I question whether anyone can know how accurate it is if it's self-selected. Why don't you perform the same poll by asking on, for example, the talk pages of the most recent N editors including IPs, so you can use the responding proportion to evaluate significance, please? EllenCT (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the NSA could save us a lot of time, and just tell us the answer, already! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC).

Good idea! Count Iblis (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The only information this poll can provide is the sex ratio of respondents (assuming that people understand it, and give honest answers). It can tell us nothing about the ratio for contributors in general. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That was my point. If you know the proportion of respondents, you can constrain their population statistics, but not if they are self-selected. I would gladly participate in this form of anonymization if it was taking place on respondents' talk pages. EllenCT (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not confidential either. It reveals the respondent's sex with probability 3/4. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This actually depends on the very answer we're after, i.e. the prior probabilities of someone taking part of the poll being male or female. You can easily that if indeed most people contributing here are men, then the poll will be a lot more confidiential for them than for men. We have:

p(answer = f, sex = f) = p(sex = f) p(answer=f|sex=f) = 3/4 p(sex = f)

p(answer = m, sex = f) = p(sex = f) p(answer=f|sex=f) = 1/4 p(sex = f)

p(answer = f, sex = m) = p(sex = m) p(answer=f|sex=m) = 1/4 p(sex = m)

p(answer = m, sex = m) = p(sex = m) p(answer=m|sex=m) = 3/4 p(sex = m)

The prior probabilities for the answers are thus given by:

p(answer = f) = sum over sex of p(answer = f, sex) = 3/4 p(sex = f) + 1/4 p(sex = m)

p(answer = m) = sum over sex of p(answer = m, sex) = 1/4 p(sex = f) + 3/4 p(sex = m)

The conditional probabibilties for the sex given what someone answers are therefore:

p(sex = f|answer = f) = 3/[3 + p(sex = m)/p(sex = f)]

p(sex = m|answer = f) = 1/[ 1 + 3 p(sex = f)/p(sex = m)]

p(sex = f|answer = m) = 1/[1 + 3 p(sex = m)/p(sex = f)]

p(sex = m|answer = m) = 3/[3 + p(sex = f)/p(sex = m)]

So, if the 20% figure for female editors is correct, then:

p(sex = f|answer = f) = 3/7

p(sex = m|answer = f) = 4/7

p(sex = f|answer = m) = 1/13

p(sex = m|answer = m) = 12/13

The amount of information someone reveils by giving an "f" or "m" answer is given by the drop in the Shannon entropy:

I(f) = 3/7 log_2(3/7) + 4/7 log_2(4/7) - 0.2 log_2(0.2) - 0.8 log_2(0.8) = -0.2633 bits

I(m) = 1/13 log_2(1/13) + 12/13 log_2(12/13) - 0.2 log_2(0.2) - 0.8 log_2(0.8) = 0.3307 bits

I(f) is negative because after you give such an answer your sex is pretty much a tossup while a priori it was a relatively safe bat to assume that you were male. So, giving this answer leads to a loss of information. Count Iblis (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

List of Members of the Administration of George W. Bush who are strongly associated with Project for the New American Century

Now renamed to List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush making claims that anyone who signs a letter is now a "member" of such a group -- so anyone who signed a CPUSA ad in the 30s is now, by Wikipedia definition, a member of the CPUSA!

Asserts through SYNTH that anyone who signs a single letter supported by a group is automatically "strongly associated" with the group. This is all too reminiscent of a practice where people who signed letters for "Communist fronts" were then labelled as "Communists" which I regard as not in keeping with Wikipedia policies and principles. In fact, I consider the compiling of such a list to be contrary to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV off the bat. To be "associated" with any group should require an active desire to be so labelled, not merely signing a single letter. And, in my opinion, this applies to any group, religion, etc. whatsoever - we do have "freedom of association" and having Wikipedia define a person to be "associated" is hubris on the part of Wikipedia. In fact, it was what was done with Americans of Japanese descent who belonged to any "Japanese-related society" in WW II, or to Germans who attended meeting of the Liedertafel societies - this is likely less of a "bad group" but we should not allow Wikipedia to define membership or association in any group. Collect (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion is thattaway -------> ///// Carrite (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Kind of a pointless list as PNAC Ceased to exist in 2006 anyway. Who cares? Nyth63 15:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Apparently some feel compelled to point out its evility. [5] shows a similar POV at Neoconservatism "Of these, many were from the Jewish intellectual milieu of New York City. and [6] on Dual loyalty: In the run up to the invasion of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, charges of dual loyalty were levelled against the neoconservatives from various sectors. The debate was heated, with charges of Antisemitism and counter charges being leveled. The controversy continues into the present due to concerns over neoconservatives disposition toward Iran. being used as an edit. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

References

Submit it at WP:AFD. I would support deletion. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I dare not -- the group pushing this has brought me to a bunch of drama-boards for being "obstinate". I got a block for standing on this. I add my post below:

Am I obstinate about "guilt by association"? Damn straight. And when it comes to opposing McCarthy - my family had the same opinion in the 50s when a neighbor of my aunt was caught up. To say a person is "associated with" or a "member of" any group requires strong direct sourcing - not polemics, articles by 9/11 conspiracy theorists, posts on lewrockwell.com, posts asserting "neocon conspiracies" etc. Genuine unquestionable reliable sources as solid as a genuine rock. If you find lewrockwell.com to be a reliable source for claims about living persons being involved in conspiracies, I damn straight will be obstinate. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

"So here I stand. I can do no other." Collect (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Your zeal is commendable ;-) -- but this whole list is so marvelously stupid that it can fall on on its own merits. Whose idea was it, anyway? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit, Jbhunley, Fyddlestix, MrX mainly. A few others join in from point to point. Check out [7] to see their apparent "preferred content" which I suggested violated a few policies. Cheers! Collect (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC) (MrX demurs on supporting the list, so I struck his name - though it sure looked like he had supported it here - sigh)Collect (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't appreciate my reputation being sullied in this particular forum shopping. I never created the article, edited the article, nor was it my idea. The above post is a blatant lie. I responded to this request at BLP/N, providing comments and evidence that at least some of the list content is WP:BLP-compliant. My posts to the article talk page pertained solely to improving the article citations so that content could be more easily verified.- MrX 21:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

If you were not in favour of this list, that I shall stand corrected. Collect (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't try to revise history in this classic non-apology. You implied that it was (partly) my idea to create the article, not that I supported it. You did this in the same context in which you compared the creation of the article to McCarthyism. That was shamefully dishonest. You have no idea whether I support the article it or not.- MrX 13:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

What history have I altered? I was asked who the proponents were, and I sought to answer as accurately as I could. You demurred on being in that list, and so I struck your name. As for accusations that I "compared the creation of the article to McCarthyism" that is a huge leap from what I have ever posted, and is an accusation which is risible here. I suggest you emend your accusations lest anyone note the distinction between my posted words and you posted accusations. Collect (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Latest complaint follows:

And... I see there is no engaging with you rationally on this topic. I said there was no need for the lewrockwell source so obviously you can not differentiate between those you disagree with. There are overwhelming peer-reviewed sources that use the term "members" to describe the people in question, you have addressed the WEIGHT of none of those. I see no "polemics" or "9/11 conspiracy theorists" used in this article, again you seem unable to separate issues. Added rest of quote and Link to conversation for the context Collect failed to provide. Jbh (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I genuinely do not know if you are purposely 'misunderstanding' sources and rehashing arguments simply to keep the debate going long past its sell by date or not. In my opinion that is the case, if you thought this article would be deleted at AfD you would have sent it there and this would be settled. Yes, I do know you have avoided AfD because if the Community said Merge or Keep you must accept that rather than moving from discussion to discussion. I also do not believe you could write an acceptable AfD since you would need to actually address all the questions put to you earlier. If you really thought the editors here were obstinately maintaining obvious BLP violations you would be asking for DS at AE.Again, you can not write such a complaint because the issues are not obvious violations of BLP. My firm belief is that you figure we will get fed up with the argument and you will then get your way. That, in my mind, is the very definition of Tendentious editing. As I said, yours is not the only opinion that counts. Jbh (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Which says that by not going to the AfD I am somehow admitting the list is proper and useful and not violating any policies at all! He also appears to make what most editors would consider a personal attack, alas. See [8] to see the apparent "preferred state" of the article. Collect (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

As opposed to these personal attacks you made?

• The purpose of this article is not to simply list people which is already done in the parent article, it is to connect them to the Bush administration per se, and to link them to a purported conspiracy to cause the Iraq War. - Imputing bad motive for creating article.
• After telling Collect that personal anecdotes are not a useful argument in AfDIs your argument actually serious- or just meant to demean those who actually seek to avoid the errors of the past? Implying support for McCarthyism.
• Directly above where Collect out right says I prefer an article state long before I ever edited the article. When my very first engagement on the PNAC article was March 2 2015. Jbh (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I have created an AFD nomination. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush. GabrielF (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Let's see how the editors apparently desirous of the old status of the PNAC article react. Collect (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Blatant forum shopping. Why would you bring this here?

The list existed on the main article for years, apparently until recently. Any of you that don't appreciate why it might still be relevant are obviously are not historians, and apparently lack an interest in international politics and international relations. It was only Collect's refusal to heed the sources that resulted in the List article being created in the first place. The discussion has been going on for about a month now across several forums, with Collect's disposition being questioned by uninvolved editors on a couple.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 21:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

First -- acquaint yourself with Jimbo's official position that this is an open page, and posts here are not "forum shopping."

Second, become aware that any violation of policy does not become a "non-violation" by simple existence at any point.

Third, note that Jimbo generally does not approve of making personal attacks on anyone here.

Fourth, anyone here may look at the AfD discussion - where it is astounding (since no one supports me <g>), that the overwhelming number of !votes are for "delete." I would have thunk if no one agreed with me that you would have a plurality there - but, mirabile dictu, it rather looks like you might actually in the minority there. Cheers of course. Collect (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow! Not only mentioning me on Jimbo Wales talk page without a ping but quoting me twice at length and out of context without notifying me. I can not even begin to communicate my contempt for that without crossing well over WP:CIVIL. No wonder so many people have been doing drive by's at AfD. Did you point out where you have refused or been unable to point out an actual/recognizable piece of SYNTH/OR in this article and failed to make a convincing/intelligible case for this table being SYNTH or OR here, here, here and here. And you failed to mention that you have been bringing up the same unsupported issues for 30 days.

Now I will ping the other editors since you had the contemptible lack of common courtesy to do so yourself. @Ubikwit:, @Fyddlestix:. I guess I should take it as a backhanded sort of compliment that you felt you had to come here on the sly... but I do not. I would rather you be forthright. Jbh (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: Above I just saw you said "the group pushing this has brought me to a bunch of drama-boards for being "obstinate" " That was a bare faced lie. I had some respect for you just minutes ago but that is gone now. There were only two "drama board" discussions that I know of The first BLPN thread YOU opened on 7 Feb and the most recent BLPN thread YOU opened on 13 March. It seems that you are not capable of making honest comment. I can deal with your pedantic sophistry, that is just the what one expects but this, here on this board is nothing but deceptive, dishonest and beneath the absolute lowest amount of courtesy one editor should expect from another. I will take the civility block at ANI but I simply must communicate to you my disgust at your behavior. Jbh (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, I also had no idea that a dispute I am involved in (and my actions/edits) were being discussed (and grossly misrepresented) here. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

So, @Collect:, I've already warned you twice over the last day or two that it looks like you've kind of lost perspective here. I'm not the only one to suggest that - so has Mr X and Stephan_Schulz has also commented that you're not making a lot of sense debating Dick Cheney over at BLPN (here and here). But after seeing your comments above I am certain of that your behavior has crossed the line into unacceptable territory. A couple things:

• We are not "the group pushing this" - have you not noticed that JBH and I disagree with Ubikwit on a lot of his edits, or that I was actually never in favor of creating the article under discussion?
• As JBH has pointed out, YOU are the one who created the "drama board" discussions about the current dispute. I made one "drama board" post shortly after my entry into this dispute, after I had stumbled upon your WP:POINTy edit here and here and tried to broker a compromise between you and Ubikwit.
• Now that I've copped to making a single post at NPOV/N, let's have a look at the "drama board" posts you've made on this one article over the past little while, shall we"? There's this one, this one, this one, this one, and this one, not to mention the report for edit warring you made that got both Ubikiwit and you blocked for a week.
• I also see that you've gone Canvassing and Forumshopping to try to get an edge in this dispute (again, without notifying the involved parties), here, here, here, and, well, here. Oh and here is another case of complaining-about-someone-to-a-higher-authority without notifying the affected party on Swarm's talk page.
• Oh, and I just saw this edit and this one (above), where you suggest that this version of the content is my "preferred" version, when you know very well that my first edit to the PNAC article characterized it as "a bit of a mess," and that I have done more to improve the article than pretty much anyone else in recent weeks. I removed much of the very same content that you objected to, which you've now suggested I would put back in the article? Ridiculous. Hell, you even thanked me for my edits, as did JBH and Ubikwit. Yet now you're slandering me and MrX, Ubikwit, Jbhunley, and pretty much anyone else who dares disagree with you by suggesting that we want that content in the article. That is a bare-faced lie, and you know it.
• I also see that your zeal for "protecting" the people mentioned in the PNAC article has now extended so far as to making factually inaccurate edits such as this one, removing all references to someone's involvement in PNAC when in reality they were a director for the organization! (First sentence of this article for those who doubt). Since you seem to watch the PNAC article talk page like a hawk, I'm pretty sure that you should have known that.
• Finally, there's your thinly veiled, but incredibly vague and non-specific implications that your (un-named) opponents in this debate are taking a position that is somehow comparable to (or promoting) anti-semitism, conspiracy theories, and McCarthy-like tactics. Now, I can read between the lines and I can see that you're directing those comments at Ubikwit, as part of the epic, never-ending dispute that you two seem to have had going on for months. But as someone who happens to be involved in this debate with you currently, I seriously resent you constantly making those implications in the vague way that you do, because it casts aspersions on people like me, JBH, and anyone else who disagrees with you in the current debate.

Sorry for the rant, but I will not allow Collect to misrepresent me and my position as he has done above without saying my piece. And I'm firmly convinced that he's exhibiting completely unacceptable behavior here. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, this is just petty. Your refusal to accept RS as RS is the reason why that article is over-cited. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The !votes at the AfD belie your personal attack here. I do not "refuse to accept RS as RS" - I do refuse to accept "guilt by association" SYNTH claims. Which appears to be what a lot of others agree with. Cheers - and please avoid those persistent ad hominem attacks. Collect (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Collect:, this is not about the article or the AFD. It's about your behavior. You knowingly made false statements about me, Ubikwit, JBH, and Mr X's position on this issue above, behind our backs, without notifying us. When I recently got confused and thought Vertrag was your sock, I apologized profusely and fully retracted the allegation, in the politest terms possible. You owe all three of us the same courtesy: an apology and a full retraction of your statement above. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

OK -- you only apologized for your SPI bit by saying the people there "apparently" cleared me. Great level of apology for making attacks on me when I was unable to respond except on my own talk page! Sort of like taking a punch at a person whose ars are tied behind his back, I suppose, but scarcely something which your apology covered. An editor accused me of CANVASSing here for the AfD - which did not exist when I posted here, and which I did not write. ( This topic has been the subject of canvassing at Jimbo's talk page by Collect. He did not notify the editors whose edits and behavior he was discussing and misrepresenting. This AfD is the direct result of that discussion). The current !vote count there is 15 (now 16 Collect (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)) for Delete, 4 for Merge/Keep, two Merge and one which states outright " without the Bush footnotes. Its nothing but a tar and feather by association conspiracy theory" which I do quite not consider to be a "Keep" vote <g>. I also note repeated ad hominems here accusing me of making personal attacks, which I damn sure avoided making. I was asked who the main proponents of the list were, and I responded as best as I was able sans "attacking" at all, but answering a direct query. Best wishes to all. Collect (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: No, that's not correct, and you are once more misrepresenting my comments. I said: "I am posting an unreserved apology for the SPI report - mea culpa. I humbly retract any and all accusations I made against you." That's a direct quote. I also offered twice to post your response on your behalf. It's also really not my fault that you were blocked for edit warring when I happened to report you. That's what happens when you edit war so I'm not really sure what you expected. And again, the AFD has no bearing on the discussion that we're having now - we passed that point when you false accused different editors of endorsing this nonsense, when you know perfectly well that all 4 of us have worked to improve the article and had huge problems with the version you linked. You also grossly misrepresented the "drama board" postings (they were almost all by you). The AFD could land on delete right now and I'd happily accept that - what I cannot accept is your refusal to take responsibility for your own lies, misrepresentations, and insults. misrepresentations. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually you started the SPI in reasonable knowledge that I was unable to reply to the charges at that page at that time. Your "apology" states: "Hi Collect, since the SPI folk apparently have evidence that the people I though were sock(s) are not you, and as promised, I am posting an unreserved apology for the SPI report - mea culpa." Note the great word "apparently" - no guilt for the accusation - only "guilt" that the SPI folks "apparently" could not prove I ran a sock. Your "unreserved apology" was very "reserved" indeed. "Retracting" accusations which were absolutely shown to be baseless is not a hell of an apology, but you seem to insist it is. Clearly your definition of "unreserved apology" differs from Noah Webster's. I also note that the edit for which I was blocked was essentially what the "new list" is, which a number of other editor clearly opine is in violation of Wikipedia policies (which is the strongest type of Deletion argument known). I would also suggest that " lies, misrepresentations, and insults" would generally be regarded as a personal attack in direct violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines per se. Collect (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: OK Collect, I will cheerfully withdraw "lies and insults." And I'll apologize: sorry for impugning your motives. But the fact of your misrepresentations remains. More to the point, though, what's your argument here, that your blantant, dishonest mischaracterization of multiple edits and editors above is ok because my apology to you for a mistaken SPI reprot wasn't groveling enough for you? I made an error, I apologized. You should do the same. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: And yet again you directly and purposly misquote me. Quote me in context or not at all. The full post reads:

Note This topic has been the subject of canvassing or whatever you want to call it at Jimbo's talk page by Collect. He did not notify the editors whose edits and behavior he was discussing and misrepresenting. This AfD is the direct result of that discussion.

Possibly you do this because you know it angers me. I do not know but stop it. These are personal attacks of the most odius kind. Editing and misrepresenting another's words and position is far beyond name calling. Jbh (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

And unsigned comments are all by you then? I note above (from various persons) also see that you've gone Canvassing and Forumshopping to try to get an edge in this dispute (again, without notifying the involved parties which quite appears to accusing me of CANVASSing, indeed. I can not easily ascribe unsigned allegations to any particular editor, but now you assert you made the specific edit "Note This topic has been the subject of canvassing or whatever you want to call it at Jimbo's talk page by Collect. He did not notify the editors whose edits and behavior he was discussing and misrepresenting." which, alas, appears to be a personal attack and a claim that I "misrepresent" your views, which, frankly, you so eloquently and iteratively express. Once you specifically use "canvass" as your charge about any other editor, you assume all the baggage of making such a charge. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope but this signed edit, which you are quoting from, is from me. See, if you use diffs like you should these problems would be minimized. BTW, I struck canvasing here a little over two hours after I made the initial post yet you quoted it as if it were not struck. Saying you are misrepresenting me is only a personal attack if the accusation is false. As it is a true and I have documented that truth it is not a personal attack. Your continued misrepresentation on the other hand... Jbh (talk) 15:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Above you say " I got a block for standing on this."That would be the block you got when YOU reported Ubikwit at ANEW. I guess that was another "drama board" "the group pushing this has brought" you to. Wow! Are we going to make you bring yourself to ANI next? The mind simply boggles Jbh (talk) 03:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I stand, and shall continue to stand, against using "guilt by association" arguments against any person or group. And your multiple posts making personal attacks on me when I make none on you are an interesting sort of position to take. Cheers, and Happy Saint Patrick's Day! Collect (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: Stand all you like but until you make specific policy based arguments all you have is obstinate opinion. Here is the quote from you which lead to the text where you quoted me above (without notifying me you were discussing me and my edits)

Am I obstinate about "guilt by association"? Damn straight. And when it comes to opposing McCarthy - my family had the same opinion in the 50s when a neighbor of my aunt was caught up. To say a person is "associated with" or a "member of" any group requires strong sourcing - not polemics, articles by 9/11 conspiracy theorists, posts on lewrockwell.com, posts asserting "neocon conspiracies" etc. Genuine unquestionable reliable sources. If you find lewrockwell.com to be a reliable source for claims about living persons being involved in conspiracies, I damn straight will be obstinate. Cheers. Collect (talk) 9:30 am, 14 March 2015, last Saturday (2 days ago) (UTC−4) emp. mine -Jbh

But you ignore sources from publishers like: Cambridge University Press, State University of New York Press, Routledge (x3), Sage, and Texas A&M University Press that all make the claim of association and say it is an important and notable relation. Those same sources negate your claims of BLP and SYNTH as well. You have also been asked what sourcing do you want to see to support the claims? You never answer that because, in my opinion, you will not accept any source.

As to what I had to say about you earlier. Every claim I made about your actions is true and backed up with diffs. My characterization of those actions may have been intemperate but they were heartfelt and remain my opinions. If you want, take me to ANI. While the drama would be annoying I would welcome the chance to have your actions and comments examined as the case is presented. You say you have made no personal attacks against me but the multiple times you conflate my support of this article with McCarthyism, as above, as well as worse things in other places are personal attacks. Not to mention the three others I linked to above.

Now, I suggest we take this conversation back to a talk page and leave Jimbo's talk page in peace. Rehashing old arguments is pointless unless you particularly want this super-public forum. Jbh (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Noting that "guilt by association" is improper, was improper, and shall remain improper, does not mean I personally attacked anyone here at all, and certainly does not mean I called anyone at all a McCarthy supporter or adherent as I most assuredly have not made any such charges at all. My only "attack" is on the use of the fallacious "guilt by association" in any article on Wikipedia which has a fairly strong policy called WP:BLP. I also note that I seems to face the same iterated charges from the same iterated editors here, and on multiple projectspace pages. Cheers to all! Collect (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Bull. I have linked to three things above which are personal attacks. I can find others where you make 'implications' of antisemitism, promotion of conspiracy theories, more McCarthyism as well as several lesser ones. Saying you did not do something does not make it so and 'nah.. I didn't really mean you' only works once. You are a smart and careful editor. You say what you mean. Pushing up to the edge of personal attacks does not mean you did not intend to make those attacks only that you want to make sure there is a way out if challenged on it. Leaving room for apology is good if used infrequently to communicate frustration. When used repeatedly it is something else altogether. What I have said about you, while uncivil, I can back up with your own words. I may be sanctioned for it. There are a couple words I regret actually saying here but I said them.

Also if you quote me ever again use diffs. Your quotes of me here were edited to remove parts of them and to remove context, even worse with out providing notice or in one case even attribution, there is no way to assume good faith with that. Considering some things considered personal attacks here you can add those to the list of your personal attacks as well. Jbh (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Considering that not a single source presented makes any claim about "guilt by association", the "example" is an off-topic analogy that is obviously being made so as to be indirectly leveled against Wikipedia editors, and that and assertion by analogy in combination with claim of making "fallacious guilt by association" not only fails WP:AGF, but comprises both casting aspersions and personal attacks against all corresponding editors.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

NYPD caught editing articles which present them in an unfavourable light

Jimmy, last year you took to Facebook with this message in which you basically taunt Vladimir Putin for what were largely innocuous edits from Russian government IPs. It now turns out that the NYPD has been caught sanitizing articles relating to innocent people who have been killed by the NYPD. Do you have any message for the NYPD along the same lines as your message to Putin? 83.99.62.203 (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure - I condem such editing and I'm happy when people get caught doing it. In this case, as far as I've seen so far, they were reverted very quickly anyway. It seems unlikely that this would have been an officially ordered act - probably just some employee doing something silly.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Were you happy when this IP editor's organization was caught doing it? - WilmingMa (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

That is disappointing. I assumed that the Foundation would hire a far better class of vandal than that. Gamaliel (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

First thing to do is to compile the data. I traced this back (via [9]) to an apparent first publication [10] by Capital New York which cites "one of" its sources for the NYPD IP addresses as [11] and links the "range of IP addresses" as [12]. It highlights edits [13], [14] , [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. It also credits [21] to NYPD. It says the complete list is here; looks like it. (I should note that BLP doesn't apply to this data, since, as company privacy policies and the ensuing police raids will assure you, IPs are not 'personally identifiable information'...) Wnt (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, on a first few pokes it appears that there are many untapped lulz in this dataset. Little things like [22] get a laugh; then also some of the 206.212 people were playing in some very shallow pools, like this, where you can start looking at all the editors and try to... well, violate outing policy, so I'll stop there for now. Wnt (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• I guess the main difference between NYPD and Putin government is that NYPD is trying (or at least pretend to try) to do something about it. According to the sputniknews article cited by User:83.99.62.203. "The matter is under internal review," NYPD spokeswoman Det. Cheryl Crispin told .... Putin's government is known to finance and actively support internet trolls like stationed in Olgino spreading disinformation and all sorts of personal attacks. The day Putin will do something about it, Mr. Wales might publish an apology Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

That Olgino article is pretty interesting (and fairly new). Do you know if they had a branch in the aviation industry? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not have reliable sources on their organization, but I guess they do not have a special aviation industry department as it is not a perennial theme of the attacks. It just emerged in relation to PR support for an obviously improbable version of downing Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. AFAIK those people just receive an outside order for a theme and arguments they should promote in blogosphere and they start to promote it (often just cutting and paste the text they are suppose to promote). The favourite pastime of Russian bloggers is to google hundreds or even thousands of identical comments from apparently unrelated pro-government bloggers. This way they can today promote a leaked pornographic video of an oppositioner and the next day the flight characteristics of SU-25. BTW I am not aware of their significant presence on en-wiki yet. But I guess we are well equipped to resist possible attacks Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• 

  We're ready to defend ourselves :). Count Iblis (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

  

  If anyone can understand the logic here, please do not explain it to me Herostratus (talk) 11:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The New Republic has picked this up... Herostratus (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Considering how much the NYPD brand is worth (I mean, the airport in Newark was selling NYPD CSI shirts), we should definitely apply the standard COI considerations. The NYPD is no longer just a police force. It's a business. As such, it should be treated as one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it's easy to get carried away with this sort of thing, because people are so used to being surveilled and judged on every picayune detail, so unaccustomed to being allowed to know anything about a cop. Things shouldn't be that way but we shouldn't let ourselves be lowered completely to our surroundings. So far the edits we've seen don't rise to the level of trying to wipe out black history, or the people's history, or any grand conspiracy. They seem like disconnected efforts by cops to do some editing, as influenced by their POV, about something they know. Of course, there is a big question of whether some cops know better than to use IP addresses, and are marshalled to accomplish more specific ends; as far as I know they still have a Red Squad of some sort, no matter what they call it, and there must be a thousand flavors of agents from around the world hoping to get control over any popular movement nowadays, including Wikipedia. But this data provides at best a faint hope of trying to penetrate to that reality; at face value it tells us only what any sensible person would already have guessed, namely there are some NYPD cops who edit Wikipedia. I don't really want somebody punished for trying to explain the structure of the NYPD in a Wikipedia article (though a COI tag might be justifiable) - it's a lead, not a crime. Wnt (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't breath.... Law enforcement is always corrupt. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

When it comes to conflict of interest edits, it simply does not get more egregious than this: [23]. It buries the needle. Rhoark (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually that deletion was a pretty good start for an awful section that could use a major rewrite. For a section that has a forked off main article, it has some serious bloat (as well as pov and synth issues). NYPD has 22,000+ police officers and thousands of others on staff and a few IP edits are likely vandalism or frustration. I dare say that the demographics of WP are likely to be aligned with the Occupy movement as well as Eric Garner (and other high profile police incidents) and I suspect frustration is high in the NYPD when they either know more about a case or feel strongly about it. The fact of the matter is, though, a grand jury heard a lot more about Garner than anything in Wikipedia and refused to indict the officer. Same with Mike Brown regarding both the Grand Jury as well as the DoJ investigation. Yes, it's a COI but let's also not forget that it wasn't to long ago that a WMF employee was editing for pay and not disclosing it. We shine the light on it, but we still allow them to contribute. Depending on whether this was NYPD wifi that connects personal phones/computers to the internet or whether it was government computers will determine discipline. If they have public wifi, like they do at my local courthouse/police department, it may not even be possible to tell if the editors are even associated. I've edited WP while wating for jury duty and my IP would have resolved to the government office. --DHeyward (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Media like to demonstrate COI edits from IPs but actually COI editors who know how to register are significantly more harmful Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

One minute after I create an article - it is put up for speedy deletion

Noank Media. Go ahead Jimmy sit on your hands again and say you can't do a damn thing. Editingstrong (talk) 03:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is the article:

[spam article redacted by -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)]

One minute after I create this article, it is put up for speedy deletion. Editingstrong (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like very thin stuff to me. Since this has become an issue, were you paid to create it, or involved in the company in some way?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

That isn't an article. It is however a copyright violation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm also puzzled why http://www.noankmedia.com/ is in Japanese, and had to use Google Translate. It is just as spammy and unencylopedic in Japanese as it is in English.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Editingstrong had plenty more to add to the article before being blocked - I noted this in contesting the speedy deletion, and copied a draft to my talk page (I would appreciate if a registered editor is willing to sandbox it properly). The allegation of "paid advocacy" for a company defunct as of 2010 strikes me as absurd. As for copyright violation, that's not a reason not to have a page on a topic - it's a reason to fix the violation. 76.69.72.50 (talk) 06:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a copy of a fuller version of the article at User talk:76.69.72.50 and it fails WP:GNG by a mile.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to take it to the article talk page, then. 76.69.72.50 (talk) 07:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

If this article gets speedily deleted - which it probably will - please recreate it in a sandbox and ask other users what they think before going live. Blather about companies and organizations is invariably tagged for speedy deletion.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

but i do think this is a good example of why new accounts shouldnt be allowed to create new articles in live space. New Account, you want to create an article about a new topic? Great! Go through this guided process off live space to get help creating something vaguely acceptable before you present it to the wide world. Besides being a gentler welcome to potential new contributors, it would also help with the BLP issue (not to mention the spamvertisement issue) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem with WP:SCRUTINY

Is that it allows corrupt admins to suppress their critics, as shown for example here. The idea that people should be forced to risk an established identity in order to challenge the actions of others (the IP editor even explicitly notes that I have no fear of scrutiny, I'm afraid of being treated harshly and unfairly).

Many administrators seem to be under the impression that IP editors have no influence here, and are delusional to imagine that they do. Utter absurdity. We are WP:HUMAN, and we make the majority of the edits. Cut off my head, and millions will grow in its place if necessary.

We will not be silenced. We are globally located, we are in the right, and we are essential to the very concept of a "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". And we will defend editors who log out, for the same reasons that we have never logged in. 76.69.72.50 (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

"Forced to risk an established identity" is exactly backwards. There is risk in editing as an ip number - because your ip number is published. There is less risk in getting an account.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Either way, the primary risk is being hassled by admins for pointing out when they've done something wrong, including breaking policy and guidelines. And without any redress system other than rigorously rigid procedures where "anyone can't edit" and which have more of those admins-who-will-admit-no-wrong and then go after the person they got nasty towards by doing things like taking up wiki-energy by re-reverting incorrect moves without knowing anything about the subject; so many examples it's futile to quote them all; the ANI board and also this talkpage are full of stories of people who try to address serious content policy (NPOV hugely among those policies) and getting no end of no-COMMONSENSE responses and harassment from people flouting and flaunting guidelines, and using NPAs while denouncing others for personal attacks for criticisms of rationales for a given move or change or content violation.

Wikipedia's many problems come from the supposed "anyone can edit" dictum (though code complexity on templates and webcites is more and more of a barrier to easy editing for those not editing, both in terms of time-wastage but also in being able to view the edit pages without reams of code-clutter...add in sometimes nasty meddling from those armed with admin badges feeling the need to use them, on subjects and language standards they really don't know anything about. But they sure are good at cherry-picking guidelines (though it seems never fully reading them, likewise re NPOV being set aside by people with no concept of the POV issues, and more of that kind of thing; those native endonym RMs that cause so much fuss and hostility towards me last year by those who don't even know the subject matter and engaged in no end of obstructionist behaviour including launching two - no, three - ANIs (four) against me, none of which had consensus to block but I was blocked anyway on a "I don't care about consensus" basis; by an admin who then "went after" the remaining RMs I'd fielded and hostile-closed them.....

The problem is "anyone can be an admin" - and I'm often shocked to find someone misbehaving or a POVite has admin status; likewise people who use WoT/TLDR all the time to refuse to listen to reason/arguments or think, which tells me that guidelines and policy like NPOV are "too long don't want to read" also.

There should be a comprehension/literacy/logic test, and also a knowledge test for tiers or admins; and the underscoring of the bit in TITLE and MOS abnout "if you don't know the subject of a discussion then stay out of the discussion and don't vote on it - that's not the exact wording but it's in there somewhere; and makes COMMONSENSE, which Wikipedia could use a whole lot more than than more "bullies with badges" i.e. admin status.Skookum1 (talk) 08:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

From the IP users linked deletion of his posts by Future Perfect:

• "I have no fear of scrutiny, I'm afraid of being treated harshly and unfairly, and therefore being unable to edit articles that have nothing to do with the controversy at hand."

Indeed, and it's not just IP users who have to fear that. And when it does have to do with a controversy at hand, admins weigh in about behaviour or technical guidelines who have no idea of the topic and its issues; this is particularly a problem re NPOV violations and more; all Wikipedians are not equal and some are more unequal than others.

trying to encourage more contributions of content from the public-at-large re local history and general history when there's all kinds of uninformed people running around throwing around abuses of guidelines and defending abuses of policy, with the power to "punish" and/or block people who are informed about a subject is not a very welcoming place to invite people into; but I'm trying as I'm currently faced with foreign revisionism of Canadian/BC history and meddling by admins who engage in personal attacks and refuse to discuss the NPOV policy, and damn me for writing about it, when not refusing or dissing my explanations of what the problem is; by people not from the country, who don't know the subject or the sources, and think if an article looks OK visually what's in the content doesn't need looking at...especially if someone who they know does know the material and sources objects, they wash their hands of policy and are just not interested in talking about it or enforcing it (NPOV that is). And not in taking the time to read about it, but instead passing judgment and threatening ANI/blocks on me for daring to raise and apply it.

You did say NPOV is not negotiable..... tell them that. Admins who support policy violations so blithely should have their status revoked; and in one case the excuse that her duties prevent her from discussing editorial content matters and only police behavioural matters (as if the two could be separated, but that's very weirdly in her terms of reference).Skookum1 (talk) 09:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

To get back on topic, it would still be interesting to know why 76.69.72.50 was so determined to create an article about little-known Noank Media, even at the expense of risking a block.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

the issue raised by the IP user and quote by me is the topic; the quality of the article is not the topic, but the way people are treated by the adminship IS the topic.Skookum1 (talk) 09:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but why was 76.69.72.50 so keen to create the article? He/she denied being paid to do it, but dodged the question of whether he/she was involved in some way.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Skookum1, a more collegial approach would be to not only name but notify me that you are talking about me somewhere else, especially if you are tacitly requesting that my adminship be revoked. For context, the concept that is proving difficult here is Wikipedia:UNINVOLVED. Skookum1 does not believe that behavioral questions can be addressed independently of content issues, while that policy makes clear that admins cannot be involved editorially and administratively in the same disputes. I've been encouraging him to pursue dispute resolution, but evidently he doesn't trust it. The conversation at my talk page speaks for itself, at great length. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the real irony here is that in looking at the rest of that proceeding that is linked, the worry about having an account blocked for bringing something up is validated. The individual that initiated proceedings in that enforcement request was logged in, and blocked basically for bringing those proceedings [24]? Yet the preceding is closed with a note that "those edits are very much within the scope of the topic ban". (And I think I recognize the offender's name from somewhere else... looks up the page a bit... See's Jimbo's response to that... hmm...) Seems like a valid thing to have brought up, even if the result is just a warning to the offending editor. (That said, the logged out thing that the initial linked post at the start of this thread did does look to be against the rules... I think. The socks page has a clause that says: "Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project." I'd think the enforcement pages would be considered internal discussions. I dunno.) --DsareArde (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Meaningful awards for the collection... Carrite (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Some baklava for you! I like food. Armin Siddiky Romin (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Original Barnstar can i get this ??? Armin Siddiky Romin (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Involuntary celibacy

I've notice a growing trend on Wikipedia where editors only accept mainstream views which is contradictory to the NPOV we have all long sought to establish. The sources provided are not only academic, but also highly notable. I believe you may be interested in participating. I have an RFC regarding this subject, comments would be appreciated. :) Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

As anyone who studies the history of the article will quickly notice, it has seen relentless POV-pushing to be recreated for a long time now. At the end of the day, it's still a fringe theory with few reliable sources and zero academic studies mentioning it. Previous AfD and request for comments ended either in merge, delete or without consensus. The term "incel" is primarily known on the internet and used by certain websites, including the "Loveshy forums", dedicated to bitter single men. It is, in more ways then one, problematic, and the sourcing is below the bar. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The sources in the article clearly show that is not the case. It has been covered extensively in multiple sources and academia prior to this century. We cover the unusual, the claim that this is not real is just plain false. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The name itself, it has already been established, is an oxymoron as the definition of celibacy is "the state of being voluntarily unmarried and\or sexually abstinent", with voluntary being a vital part of the very definition. As previously mentioned on several prior discussions, the subject would be more fitting to be added to an article such as sexual frustration, which ticks all the boxes for this phenomenon. I also noticed you only notified editors who voted either neutral or in favor of keeping the article of this new request for comment. ;) Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not following you. Anything can be term Dune buggy, Dark light, etc. It is two words combined to describe a condition as all thing are. Sexual frustration and involuntary celibacy are two completely different things. One can be sexually active and still sexually frustration. That is not so the case of involuntary celibates as sources state. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 01:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Incel or Involuntary celibacy is a blogg. It is not a scientifically accepted notion. User above was pushing for this issue latest in December 2014, when quite a lot of editors agreed that it is no keep. We are now back there again. I find this disruptive. Hafspajen (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

"primarily known on the internet" is not equal to "non-notable." Nor does fringe even imply the likelihood of non-notability. (not that I think this fringe--applying the concept of fringe to many psychological or social topics is very risky, as there are not the same objective standards, & what is accepted as reasonably mainstream is subject to rapid change -- & can often merely represents opinion, and sometimes prejudice. ) DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• ? Hafspajen (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Changing main SUL account

Hi Jimbo (and others),

I'm wondering if it's possible to change my account creation details to Meta-Wiki (or the home wiki at least)? With the global userpages in effect for awhile now, it feels strange [to me] it's not my original signup (it was the second automatically created, from the original)... it's closer to more of a centralized wiki. DivineAlpha (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I actually have no idea, but many helpful people visit this page and may be able to help.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Need someone to help with a BLP issue

I need someone fluent in Danish and English to help with a BLP issue that has been brought to my attention. I'm going to post as well on BLPN here, but I'm not sure where to go on Danish Wikipedia to see if someone there would like to help.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)