User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Harry Potter is Still A Girl

Dear Jimbo, some weeks ago I spoke about a group of incompetent people controlling the Alkaline Diet article, putting false statements there, and others who try to correct their lies being thwarted by Admin who block them. You said you would look into it. I see that the article and talk page are now locked so myself an IP editor cannot comment, the incompetent people are still in control of the talk page, continuing their lies, the primary sources are still being ignored, and the article itself has not changed to reflect the truth of the diet as described in the primary sources. I see no comment from you on my talk page or on the diet talk page. In essence, despite the long discussion here about "gangs" and primary sources having validity ("we are not transcription monkeys" being your words), nothing has actually changed. Wikipedia remains a place with too many guidelines that experienced editors can use to beat down the truth in favor of their bias. As a first time editor I remain removed from the situation, unwilling to fight a month long battle to change on line on a biased article. Others before me tried and gave up. Your system does not work. Someone with experience is more powerful here than someone with knowledge. I suggest you do something about it. Maximus (User 86.93.139.223) 93.75.227.40 (talk) 07:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I looked into it and I was unpersuaded by your arguments.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Firstly if that was your conclusion I'm not sure why you were unable to tell me that on my talk page. Secondly I listed about 10 other editors who had the same experience. That information was on the talk page of the article and was archived by one of the biased editors when I approached you. So you are essentially not convinced by 10 people which had the same experience as me. In conclusion it's cool with you that a new editor is blocked twice for attempting to add a factual referenced statement to an article and it's ok that they get attacked by experienced biased editors to the point that they leave Wikipedia. Sad. Sad considering I'm one of 10 that this happened to. If the man at the top does not care about this then the reason the system is broken is clear. Maximus. 93.75.227.40 (talk) 07:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I just read that page. As far as I can tell, the conflict is about what the diet claims to do.

Critics, in secondary sources, say "this diet claims to change blood pH" and criticize it on that basis.

Supporters say "this diet doesn't claim to change blood pH" and point to primary sources about the diet, some of which explicitly deny that it changes blood pH.

The question is how to decide what claims are being made about the diet. I don't think you should trust secondary sources who say "this is what the diet claims to do" above the word of primary sources who are the ones making the claims. The primary sources are good sources for the content of their own claims.

This would be easier if someone came up with a primary source making the claim, but I don't think anyone has, and even if they did, since there is already a primary source which denies the claim, we'd need to be careful about undue weight. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hell, no. Proponent claims should be taken from secondary independent third-party sources, which explain:

• the weight of each claim
• the historical context where the claims were made
• the reception given to each claim
• whether the proponents later changed their claims
• whether practitioners still use the same principles under the hood even if they have changed their public claims (not saying that this is the case here)
• whether they still make the same claim but using different words

There can be hundreds and thousands of primary sources. An editor can present a collection of primary sources, but there is no guarantee that the collection is not biased or misinterpreted or cherry-picked. With hundreds of sources, you can easily collect a dozens sources that support a mistaken summary of the claims. It's all WP:OR original research. Articles like cold fusion or homeopathy would become masses of original research with no relationship to what the scientific community actually thinks of those topics. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

What the scientific community thinks of the claims is relevant to whether they are true or false. But it's not relevant to knowing what claims are being made. If you want to know what claims are being made, the best source is the people making the claims, not the critics. Relying on someone's critics for a summary of their position introduces bias in a much more direct way--it would be like describing Obama's health care plan based solely on summaries produced by prominent Republicans.

And yes, there could be hundreds of sources, not all of which claim the same thing. Figuring out what prominence to give them is weighing sources. Weighing sources is something we must always do when creating articles; it's not original research (though poor weighing of sources could be an undue weight problem). Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The best sources are secondary reviews of the subject, which detail the claims being made and analyze them. Let's not dismiss every reviewer as a critic just because there are many negative things to be said about a subject. We are supposed to weigh the reliability and prominence of secondary sources to decide the weight we give to their conclusions. We are not supposed to waddle though hundreds of primary sources and pick the ones that we assess to be more correct. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Firstly there are some independently published books from 6 years ago or more that are few in number and the key primary source of the data on the diet. Several were mentioned. Secondly the biased editors due to their lack understanding have presented articles which they claim say the diet alters blood pH when they in fact say the opposite. Thirdly my issue here is NOT with the diet, it is with the way experienced editors with admin friends can effectively block the content of an article against the facts, leading a newbie editor with significant knowledge on the topic to conclude that Wikipedia is a joke. So while it is nice all this semantics, if anyone had read a book on the diet they would know the Wikipedia article is blatant lies. And if anyone read the talk pages and saw my points made here previously, this is NOT about the article, it is about how Wikipedia functions. Anyone with a few Admin mates can write whatever they want and knowledgeable editors are blocked. And when I brought this issue to Jimmy's attention he didn't seem to care. "Don't Bite The Newbie" and "Be Bold" are guidelines that don't exist in practice. So while you can argue semantics here the fact that a bunch of bullies can rule a Wikipedia page should be the issue you are addressing. And you are not. Maximus. 93.75.227.40 (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I didn't come to Jimbo Wales about an issue with the Alkaline Diet page. Wikipedia has millions of articles, he does not need to deal with each one. I came to him with an issue about how the Wikipedia process works, or does not work. I addressed this issue with Admin who were part of the problem. So please if you wish to comment here, make it about how experienced Wikipedia editors use obscure and conflicting rules to attack newbie editors in order to maintain their bias on an article. That is the point I brought to Jimbo's attention here. The rest is discussed on the article's talk page or my talk page where editors deleted my comments from the talk page. As my IP changes due to travel use the link on the Alkaline Diet talk page to see my talk page. Maximus. 93.75.227.40 (talk) 06:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the use of Primary Sources, Jimbo made it clear in an earlier discussion on this topic that Wikipedia does not ignore obvious Primary Sources in favor of conflicting secondary sources. Maximus. 93.75.227.40 (talk) 06:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I've had a quick look on the web about the alkaline diet to see what site pushing it say. The first few said blood pH but then I came across one saying body pH, however the level it gave was obviously for blood and anyway the insides of cells tend to be slightly acid. A bit later on I came across one with testing of saliva or urine which is neither blood nor intracellular pH. The very large majority talked about a pH of about 7.3-7.4 or talked about blood. A lot of them also asserted that lemons somehow caused alkalinity after being eaten but I saw no substantiation of how this wine to water trick was done.

All in all I'd have to say that I saw absolutely no support for the contention that they were referring to body pH as in intracellular pH. And my understanding is that if one could somehow make the 'body pH' as referred to in the Nature paper alkaline rather than acid one would die pretty quickly.

So overall I see no great conspiracy to hide the truth, just an article talking about some quack medical topic where the opinion of qualified medical people should be given the highest weight. Dmcq (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes and that is a few websites and NOT the books which are independently published, detailed, many years old and they don't concur with the websites. They explain the diet in detail and you have done exactly what everyone else who is controlling the Alkaline Diet article has done. You have read a few websites and concluded that you know more than someone who has read several substantial books about the diet. So you are just another person without the expertise to make these statements. So you are just another misinformed person believing that your 5 minutes of research makes you an expert. Now if I say that to you I am showing a battlefield mentality and I must be blocked. Or I know what I am talking about and you don't. You might as well say that Harry Potter is a girl, that the fact that you have not read the books is irrelevant, and your lack of detailed knowledge is not important. That is how totally wrong you are. So thank you for justifying my point exactly. BUT, this is NOT what I came to Jimbo Wales about. So you really didn't get that either. This is about the fact that when I presented these books with details of the diet and explained the diet (like about 10 others did) I was blocked from editing. And that issue has NOT been dealt with here or anywhere else. Please leave the comments about the diet to the talk page of the diet and don't waste the time here about that. My concern was with a deeper issue in the way Wikipedia works, not one tiny article in millions. Maximus 180.183.11.248 (talk) 02:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC) (Yes my IP changed again, I am constantly moving for work)

To be clear, I spent a lot of time on the talk pages of the article explaining the BASICS of the diet to people who were controlling the article. I thought I was helping, then I realized that I should not be explaining the BASICS of the diet to people who are editing an article about the diet. I then saw that anyone who knew more than these people was attacked and blocked from editing. These ignorant people were convinced that their ignorance equaled knowledge. So I gave up. None of them, or you have taken the time to read a book about the diet. There are several listed on the talk page by me. There are others mentioned by an Admin that tried to help me. No one who has control of this article has read those books. I might as well watch an HBO episode on brain surgery and edit the Wikipedia article on the topic, deleting anything written by brain surgeons. Well as long as I have a few Admin mates and people like you who concur with me, my edits will take precedence over those of an expert. If you look at the archived sections of the Alkaline Diet talk page you will see that a lot of people with detailed knowledge of the diet had their edits reverted and were blocked and threatened. That is what I came to Jimbo about. The attack of knowledge by a gang of ignorant people supported by Admins and in conflict with the actual philosophy of Wikipedia. Maximus. 180.183.11.248 (talk) 02:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly why should these books of yours have any weight? Whatever they might have said it certainly isn't wht is being done in practice from what I can see. Anyway do these books of yours explain why it is called the alkaline diet if intracellular pH is meant and that should always be acidic? Dmcq (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

@Anon: For perspective you may want to read WP:Randy in Boise, User:Jnc/Astronomer vs Amateur, and WP:Expert retention. Interesting and relevant to this situation I think. -- œ^™ 04:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually they don't seem to be claiming they are an expert, just some anybody like me. So as far as I can see it is more like an amateur complaining to experts that they ignore or misread the books of experts that he has read correctly. Dmcq (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that someone who read Harry Potter would be more of an expert than someone who didn't. I'm not JK Rowling if that is what you mean. These books are not my books. They are the KEY primary source material that created the diet. Before them there was no term Alkaline Diet. They are the source material that the websites refer to. To ignore them is to ignore the Harry Potter books in a discussion about Harry Potter. The fact that you do that is a total joke. You just can't say "I've not read the books, I therefore don't know and I should listen to someone who has." To read them would take time. You don't want to invest time. Just arrogance. You read a few websites and decide that is enough. This is a joke. Get that? I really should edit the article on brain surgery because I have a brain. Not having been to medical school is not relevant. Apparently. The discussion above about Astronomer vs Amateur shows me that this is a known problem in Wikipedia that is not being solved. The reason is simple. The people in charge don't care. They are part of the problem. So they do nothing. I came here to find a resolution only to discover that there is a problem, no desire to solve it and Wikipedia is a joke. So like other expert editors before me I leave here more aware of the truth of Wikipedia and less interested in believing what is written here. And all I wanted to do was add one line to a tiny part of a fringe article to comment that it was inconsistent with the source material. I never wanted to change the article itself. But that was too much for some morons to allow. Maximus 118.173.201.34 (talk) 07:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Last comment before this gets archived and forgotten. I've read the books. None of the people controlling the article have, and they don't care. They don't see that as an issue. Competence is a guideline in Wikipedia. You are supposed to have it to comment on an article. They don't care about their lack of competence. You don't care. The admins don't care. Jimbo Wales does not care. All they care about is control. Like communism, Wikipedia is a great idea in theory that has become something else about control. The article is wrong, and like many before me with competence, I am blocked and threatened and deleted. Admin support that happening, and Jimbo Wales does not care. So incompetence with support beats competence. Maybe that is why communism finally failed. People without brains ran the country for too long. People here with control and no knowledge are defeating those with knowledge. That is not what Wikipedia was supposed to be about, yet that is what it has become. I saw an advertisement for a watch with Jimbo Wales talking about Wikipeida as free knowledge for all. That is not true. It is not knowledge, it is a consensus based on power bases and friendship with Admins. In fact it is a lack of knowledge that is winning here. It is people reading a couple of websites and saying they know everything. You might as well claim that Harry Potter is a girl. What bothers me most is that the poster boy of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales, and everyone else in power here, doesn't care. The facade and the reality are different. Like the facade of communism. It is why many others who contributed to the Alkaline Diet page also gave up. I was just the last voice of truth among the many. And you people who know nothing have won again. Ten monkeys can kill a man. That does not make them smarter than the man. Enjoy your monkey madness. Maximus. 118.173.201.34 (talk) 06:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You are the amateur and are putting your interpretation up against that of secondary sources written by experts. It is not up to editors on Wikipedia to be experts but to judge the sources. I judge you as an interpreter and expert to have less weight than a doctor. Dmcq (talk) 08:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

What's compelling is that in your last two lengthy, and rather ranting, message you've failed to address Dmcq's apparently quite logical question about the Alkaline Diet (especially when it is apparent he is not ignorant of the topic, and is attempting to read up on it as you requested). --Errant ^(chat!) 08:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I answered those questions on the talk page of the Alkaine Diet in detail for others who did not understand the diet who asked the same question. And when I explained the workings of the diet they said that blood pH was the same as body PH and I was using semantics. Which showed then knew nothing of the diet. So asking me to do the same thing here is insane. AND this is not about the diet, it is about the Wikipedia policies. As I also said here. So that is two reasons to not answer his comments here. Let me say this instead. The Alkaline Diet article is about the diet, not only about the validity of the diet. To be able to comment on the diet you would need to have read the key primary sources of the diet, being independently published literature. There are only a few, they have been around for a while, and they are readily available. There are some websites that explain the diet in a very brief way. Nothing like the 200+ page books. If I am a doctor or a rocket scientist or an investment banker does not make any difference if I have not read the source material. A wizard who has not read Harry Potter books is less of an expert on Harry Potter than a kid who has read them. This is simple and obvious. A biologist made a comment on the talk page, totally misunderstanding the diet as they had not read any of the books and they felt that their knowledge was greater than someone who read the books. So once again, read the books then comment. And get this. I never asked for the criticisms of the diet to be taken down. I just wanted to make one small qualifying statement. That was attacked and deleted, I was blocked, insulted, threatened and blocked again. Now you are attacking me here. Why? Because I know more than you? As for the article I commented about, some say it was written by a doctor at Harvard Medical School. It was by a nutritionalists at a minor university. When I contacted her for her primary sources she refused to comment. Looking at her article you can see she has also not read the books. So yeah, I'd say Harry Potter is a girl and attack anyone else who says I should read the books. And my being a wizard makes me right. But I'm not doing that since that would be... crazy!!! Maximus Out. 118.173.195.132 (talk) 08:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is Butt-ugly

Well, apparently The Atlantic thinks so..... Wow, this comes as a shock to me because I actually really like the way the wiki-pages look...

Here is an empirical truth about Wikipedia: Aesthetically, it is remarkably unattractive. The gridded layout! The disregard for mind-calming images! The vaguely Geocities-esque environment! Whether it's ironic or fitting, it is undeniable: The Sum of All Human Knowledge, when actually summed up, is pretty ugly.

So the real ugliness of the site, Gardner notes, isn't cosmetic. It's that Wikipedia has "a built-in bias against design and user-friendliness."

Guys, what do we think about this?--Coin945 (talk) 06:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Beauty is subjective, and so is design friendliness. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 06:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses MediaWiki, which is now a standard for many wiki-based websites. Wikipedia pages are designed to load in virtually any browser, and do not require fancy use of JavaScript, Adobe Flash Player or other plug-ins in order to work correctly, unlike many modern websites. If this makes the pages look somewhat basic, it is a price worth paying.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Beauty is in the brown-eye of the beholder. 24.23.83.159 (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The current layout is simple and beautiful. No less, no more. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 06:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki can be made to look a lot nicer. See http://wikifashion.com/wiki/Main_Page for an example.JN466 19:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That is seven columns in places, so I wouldn't recommend it unless it passes mobile rendering and http://browsershots.org, but that looks sweet. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 04:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup, Annabelle Dexter Jones looks sweet indeed in today's featured wikifashion article. But seriously, what's all this commercial buzzword nonsense about "mind-calming images"? Wikipedia is an innovative general encyclopedia. It doesn't need to be marketed like a fashion gadget. Well presented, user-friendly layout, sure... But gratuitous eye candy, no thanks! —MistyMorn (talk) 11:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a reason why I still have Wikipedia set to Classic in my preferences, rather than whatever version it's on now. Silverseren^C 06:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The clunky look does pass on the message that Wikipedia is the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, so I think there is something valuable about that which one should be careful about not losing. I think to myself in terms 'the free encyclopaedia that just about anyone might have edited' and the look helps that way too to tell people to just be a bit wary.

The user friendliness is something that could be improved I think and |I realy think more thought needs to be put into implementing WP:NOTPAPER. I'd like people to think more in terms of trying to sell information to people. One thing shops windows do for instance is display just the main points not cram everything in the window like some articles do here instead of using subtopics. The problem is getting especially acute with the use of mobile phones to access information. Too many editors think in terms of how much information they can shove in rather than how best to feed the information to readers, they even duplicate stuff from subtopics because the subtopic has far fewer page views! All that does is make stuff harder to skim through and find the relevant bits never mind being a total waste of resources in Wikipedia servers, bandwidth, mobile browser charges, and users time and patience. Dmcq (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Of course, "butt-ugly" is such an odd term ...I have followed one or more really nice-looking butts in my day ;-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

“ It could be that a superficial makeover is just the thing Wikipedia needs to begin growing in a more meaningful way.. ” — The Atlantic

...ok...lets see; Alexa Global Traffic Rank;

• wikipedia.org 6
• theatlantic.com 1,783

I think its the Atlantic which needs to begin growing in a more meaningful way. --Hu12 (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see also https://github.com/stuartjmoore/Wikipedia-Prettification [1] 71.212.249.178 (talk) 07:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Those complaining about ugliness should register and account and use a "skin" to alter the look of the site in preferences. The "Cologne Blue" skin looks pretty darned good, in my opinion... Problem solved. Carrite (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The article saying "Wikipedia is ugly" is just a space-filler made up that morning to provoke attention, but I was surprised to find the Slashdot thread where just about everyone agreed that the article is badly misguided, with comments like "decoration gets in the way of functionality". Johnuniq (talk) 07:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The point that some people (I will not name them, they know who they are) continue to miss, again and again, for decade after decade, is that decoration and functionality are not mutually exclusive, but rather complement each other like two people dancing—you only notice when one dancer is out of step with the other. The reason Apple has 43% of the smartphone market has nothing to do with "I need an iPhone because the Joneses have one", but is solely due to the fact that decoration and functionality are indistinguishable and married at the hip. It's 2012; anyone still arguing about decoration vs. functionality needs to get out of the basement. That argument ended years ago. Good decoration is functional and good functionality is decorative. I think it is very clear that when articles appear saying that "Wikipedia is Butt-ugly", they really mean that Wikipedia is not user-friendly. And they are, of course, absolutely correct. This has been a problem from the very first day Wikipedia appeared, and it has never been solved. Think for a moment how long it takes an adult to learn how to use Wikipedia. The investment of time required to achieve this feat, and the total number of hours and days is staggering. Now, how long does it take someone to learn how to use an iPhone? Five minutes? One hour? The reason people in this thread don't take these concerns seriously is because they are thinking about design and functionality from their own insular POV rather than the wide range and perspective representative of our readers and potential new editors. Viriditas (talk) 09:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Apple design both the hardware and software and make them work together, and the user is (for the most part) doing things with which they are already familiar—that's why Apple's products work. Bolting a WYSIWYG editor onto a website will give unsatisfactory results no matter how superficially pretty it is (try it at Wikia). What would work would be a downloadable app that runs proper code on the user's machine, and which exchanges wikitext with Wikipedia's servers through an API. Serious effort to standardize the wikitext would also be required. Regardless of all that, editing here is hard because editing an encyclopedia is hard. Johnuniq (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we need that sort of homely "nuts and bolts" workbench feel to stimulate editorial participation. Universal ergonomics ("degeeking") should be the priority, imo. Editing is often fiddly anyway -- no need to make it fiddlier than necessary. —MistyMorn (talk) 12:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

RFA reform by fiat

Jimbo, I propose that it is time for one of your executive institutions to intervene to change how administrators are appointed on this project. The current RFA process is essentially dead. This is not a complaint about incivility or unfair votes or whatever; this is an acknowledgement that your project has become hopelessly incapable of promoting new administrators.

In 2012, RFA has granted 11 volunteer editors the administrator tools. This rate of promotion won't be enough to address future growth on the project, and it likely isn't enough to even replace the editors who currently fatigue and stop using the tools.

I realize you prefer that the community make its own decisions as necessary to improve the project. However, the community has repeatedly tried and failed to come to agreement on how to promote more administrators who are well-suited to the role. For example, see the last couple years' archives at WT:RFA. Also see WP:RFAREFORM2011, a well-intentioned editor-driven project that never stood a chance of catalyzing change, because it is a self-appointed task force with a general point of view that a sufficient segment of RFA participants (including me) disagreed with.

Candidly, I expect you dismiss this note without a second thought. But I know I'm not the first person to suggest RFA is an issue on your project, and I suspect I won't be the last. I urge you to make a top-down decision, and admit that in this isolated instance, consensus-based decision making has failed. This will not be an admission that consensus never works, but pretending that it always works is proving to be folly, and will imperil your project if not reconsidered.

Good luck to you and to Wikipedia. Townlake (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Having read this over, I think it's both a terrible idea and one with potential. I don't think Jimbo should do it on his own. But if the WMF decided to try to address the problems with RfA on en.wikipedia, that might be something to consider. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Reread the first paragraph; I'm not saying Jimbo should do this on his own. But to get the appropriate institution involved, his talk page seems a logical place to start. Townlake (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

We should simply allow all experienced editors in good standing (say if you have not been blocked in the last two years) to be an Admin upon request. You then need a de-Admiship procedure to allow the community to remove Admins who don't do their jobs well. That way the community does have its say and it actually acts based on relevant facts. Count Iblis (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's shut this activity down early; this isn't a place to discuss ideas for reform. This is a place to acknowledge that no single idea has achieved consensus, and thus an institution should make a decision for the community. Townlake (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The Wikimedia foundation is supposed to make sure the servers run, and should not interfere with the workings of this community unless there is absolutely no alternative (e.g. when there are no admins left). We admins still somehow manage to run this place (of course we could do a better job). —Kusma (t·c) 19:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The project should not be allowed to fail before this problem is fixed. Good managers solve problems as they emerge. If WMF isn't the right entity, fine, but someone has to take this discussion out of the community's hands, or the project will fail. Townlake (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, well months ago I recommended an admin review board (kinda like doing performance reviews bi-annually) ... so the logical extension is an admin "hiring" board. 5 Random admins who have been chosen because they have never edited the same articles, or each other's talkpages. Other than that, the process and Q&A could be similar to RFA as it is - but between those 5 personnel and the "candidate". Yes - some pre-screening of qualifications could occur (only editors with no blocks, X number of edits, Y number of unique articles with 2 or more edits, etc) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Repeating: This isn't a place to discuss ideas for reform. This is a place to acknowledge that no single idea has achieved consensus, and thus an institution should make a decision for the community. Townlake (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

But you're wrong. This is one of the most watched pages on the project, and a LOT of useful discussion towards policy/processes goes on here. You can't simply post a screed like above and not expect/accept comments/possible solutions so stop trying to have the last word about your little idea (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Bwilkins, I'm asking you nicely to not hijack this thread with off-topic commentary. Townlake (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not off topic. Off-topic is suddenly discussing monkeys and Hamlet. As long as we're talking about RfA in some capacity, we're on-topic. And this is in fact the forum, unless a discussion begins somewhere that's a better forum. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The topic is removal of the decision from the community, not rehashing the same tired exercise where Everybody Has An Idea For Reform. Hopefully Jimbo will watch the train wreck this thread devolves into, return to my original post, and see that removing this subject from community jurisdiction is the only logical next step. So thank you and Bwilkins for helping us get there. Townlake (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

And I'm allowed to say it's the stupidest dumbass idea I've ever heard if I want to, wherever I want to. However, I didn't say that ... I offered a valid, useful response of an alternate solution, so don't ever presume to rudely tell me to no longer comment (more than once even). (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Townlake, you're allowed to tell Bwilkins and the rest of us "I don't think this is the appropriate forum anymore, let's talk about it [[here]]." But you can't say "This isn't the appropriate forum, stop talking about it" on a user's talk page that isn't your own, unless that user is banned from talking about it. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 22:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see also Wikipedia:RfA reform 2012. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Townlake. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Grant tools automatically on request to any user with 5000 edits, a year of experience and a clean block log.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• How about "5000 edits and/or 3000 non-automated edits" and "a year of experience and a clean block log, or three years of experience and a clean block log for the past year?" - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 22:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Works for me. Basically the criteria is irrelevant, just a question of the community setting a bar.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly. (Time + High Threshold of Edits + Clean Block Log) = automatic buttons. Problem solved. Carrite (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I predict that would start to show some cracks about the time it takes the average new editor to get to 5,000. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 00:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

A system which is lacking community input is a bad idea: there are plenty of editors that shouldn't have access, an automatic system would cause mayhem (and easily exploitable: spam X edits for tools). How about instead, recommend each admin to recommend X number of people for RFA each year, thus providing fresh blood. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Under the current system I would never recommend running through an RfA to any person I consider a friend. The point of having automatic admin status is that it cements the fact that being an admin is not a big deal, and it means that the risk of cliques forming is little, and it minimizes the risk that powerhungry individuals would seek the tools. The system would not be exploitable, because there is nothing to exploit.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The slogan of "Adminship is No Big Deal" needs to be reestablished, I think. Currently RfA is a 7 day proctological exam, conducted by a tag team of 150 people of differing intentions — some of whom wish to subject the patient's rectum to blunt-force trauma during the process. Only people who REALLY like proctologists would be advised to run. I don't think change will come until the dysfunctional approval system proves itself dysfunction in real life in terms of keeping the project adequately staffed with people with the buttons. We're going to see some negative growth of the admin corps this year, we'll see how that plays out over time. Carrite (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that the process is wrong--why should it be? Some RfAs shouldn't have been started in the first place, others weren't dead in the water at birth but drowned halfway through. It is entirely possible that the process weeds out bad candidates: look through the selection of unsuccessful RfAs from the last year and tell me how many were unjustifiably unsuccessful. And how big is this need for new admins, really? Won't we need more editors before we need more admins, and if more editors come along, isn't it likely that more of them will go through RfA successfully? I got a small suggestion for you, however: cut down on silly questions that require dissecting and writing at length about hopelessly hypothetical situations, the kind of thing that can make it such a drag. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

[2] 71.212.249.178 (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way; if it were to be, I am in strong favor that identifying to the WMF and meeting an age threshold should be required. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 08:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Identifying to the WMF would violate the principle that we are allowed to edit anonymously. A few people would know your real identity and that information will then eventually leak out into the wider community. Count Iblis (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hundreds of editors have identified here, and are they all now not anonymous anymore?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

What problem would that solve? —Kusma (t·c) 16:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable that Townlake has asked us to consider the single provision of whether or not this decision should be formed at the top and assimilated into the community. That answer, being the paramount concern, rightly assumes a more appropriate time and manner for suggestions. I feel it was a mistake for me to have commented on issues, aside the topic. I apologize for that.

Townlake has shown how current practices place unreasonable peril upon the project, and reasonably asserts that Jimbo should exercise leadership; and see this to fruition! I agree. I am always keen to see Mr. Wales comments. And I join Townlake, in asking that [we] focus a response, either affirming the decision should come from the top, or that consensus is preferred and capable. I'll write separately regarding my misplaced comments. Sincerely - 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Strat, I appreciate your support. As I expected, this thread went off-topic quickly, but that's not your fault. I look forward to seeing if Jimbo someday decides to take action on my suggestion. Townlake (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The immediate thing that would not only be proper, but in fact, appropriate, would be for Mr. Wales to append his regards to your query. I am accustomed to propriety on this page, so I am in keen anticipation. By the way Townlake, thanks for all you have done over the years for this project. Sincerely 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You can discuss whatever you like with Jimbo on Jimbo's talk page. Jimbo certainly has access to the same project talk page or wikipedia space talk page or Village Pump processes of building community consensus that we all have. He's also got exactly the same access to IAR that we all have. I respect Jimbo's circumspection. I'm sure that Jimbo and other editors respect the fact that attempts to use reserve powers will result in massive community resistance and dispute resolution processes. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It's reasonable to expect that were some Wikia institution to thoughtfully implement a logical new process by fiat, the community would quickly grow to understand why it should appreciate the change. You'll always have a vocal minority of objectors. That doesn't mean you do nothing in order to placate that minority. Townlake (talk) 05:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikia is a private entity, off wikipedia collusion is treated very seriously. I think you need to acculturate to the en.wikipedia community, because your proposals are fundamentally offensive and violate multiple pillars. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to say, this is the one time I can think of when I wish that Jimbo could still rule by fiat, because I, too, think that RfA isn't functioning correctly and community processes aren't sufficient to fix it. But the day has long passed when he could make such declarations. If he did now, they'd simply be reverted by a large number of other editors, and eventually blocked for disruptive editing. The WMF, of course, could rule by fiat as the owners of the servers, but even there they run the risk of alienating too many editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Please note: I don't mean to imply that Jimbo would be disruptive in this manner, only that if he were to attempt to bypass obtaining community consensus on such a significant issue, it would be viewed as disruptive. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it better to be disruptive and lose a couple dozen volunteers than do nothing and wait til it's too late to address the issue. The community clearly won't do anything unless the consequences of having a bare-bones admin staff reach DEFCON 1, and even then, who knows if consensus decision-making will work. I'll admit I'm morbidly curious to find out, but still, would rather not. Townlake (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to state that virtually everyone knows that the existing RFA process is broken. Jimbo knows, the WMF knows, virtually every editor thats been around more than a couple months knows and so this topic isn't really anything new. The problems is in changing it. No matter how good an idea is its nearly impossible to change things on Wikipedia because there's nearly always some editor who wants to keep things the same as they have been and starts throwing around terms like Lacking consensus and although onen editor doesn't constitute a lack of consensus, Many a good idea has been derailed by one or 2 editors. Although I also know that Jimbo is unlikely to personally do anything about this problem I also agree that something needs to be done. Using myself as an example, I have been here for years with hundreds of thousands of edits and if I don't know how to do it I pretty much know how to talk to about it. I am not an admin, I have no interest in going throught the RFA process (I tried back in 2008). I could use a lot of the tools and if they show up one day then great, other than that, I'll probably never be one. A lot of other editors have the same problem. I have long advocated the unbundling the tools is the best way to go and I still support that. I do not support giving the full toolset to every established editor but there are some such as file mover, editing protected pages and a number of others that would be highly useful for established users like myself without having to request each one individually. Kumioko (talk) 14:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Before requesting a community site ban of a persistent sockpuppetteer …

• Stephen M. Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• EarthStation 5#Stephen M. Cohen — There are sources cited on the BLP noticeboard covering this. The biography used to cover it, but currently (after all the whitewashing and back and forth) does not.
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vanburrena
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Stephen M. Cohen
• McCarthy, Kieren (2007-05-03). "10. Stephen Michael Cohen". Sex.Com. Quercus. ISBN 9781905204663. {{cite book}}: |format= requires |url= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link) — via Waterstones

This is an odd situation. I find myself in the unusual position of being able to cite a source — a biography by Guardian and Register writer Kieren McCarthy — that an article subject engages in sockpuppetry and legal threats, and has done decades before Wikipedia even existed (McCarthy 2007, p. 48–49). But before we get onto that, there's one step that is always danced in the dance that we all do over these articles. And that's the Deletion Nomination From Jimbo. Do you wish to nominate this article for deletion? I suspect that it would have a Streisand effect and not achieve a consensus for deletion.

If the article isn't nominated and deleted, my next step, which I'm trying to work out how to do in a way that doesn't stir things up and splash this name all over the headlines, is a request for a community site ban of someone who (as far as I can see) since 2005 has been editing xyr own Wikipedia biography with sockpuppets, issuing legal threats in that and other articles, doing BLP vandalism, spamming external links for (purported) Mexican companies and writing articles on the same sourced solely to the WWW sites of each other, and (lately) impersonating other living people whilst doing so. (I think that future editors and administrators will be well served with having the formality of wholesale community support to hand.) That's because my involvement here is on the administrator side of things. I've tried to stay distanced, as much as possible whilst keeping an eye on this, from the detail of the content issues. I'm trying to deal with the sockpuppetry and impersonation of other people, with Wikipedia accounts in their names, and am currently waiting for the checkuser results at SPI.

The problem isn't that I think that the community will say no. I expect the reaction to be amazement at how long this has gone on for under the radar, and a strong yes. The aforelinked aren't even one tenth of the diffs that I could put forward, and this is quite clearly in part Kremen v. Cohen being fought (by both sides, albeit not nearly equally) within Wikipedia articles. The problem is that this is not just some pseudonym. This is someone with an article (and sockpuppet account names that match other living people). I remember the Deletion Nominations From Jimbo in past cases where we've had problems with people who actually have articles. (I'm sure that you remember the names even better than I do.) So I'm not asking idly, or as a joke.

I hope that I've managed to avert our getting an arbitration case out of this that doesn't even involve the principals here, as well. (See recent discussion on the BLP noticeboard.) I really don't want that too.

Uncle G (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• FWIW, Jimmy, I think we might want to involve Geoff in this one. Please email me (or ask Geoff to). In the meantime, I would recommend this not be too exposed. — Coren ^(talk) 02:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • see Wikipedia:Centijimbos ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • My opinion, after yet further thought, is that you definitely do need to obtain M. Brigham's opinion. Uncle G (talk) 10:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • In the meantime, the editorial conflict over content that rather forced my hand here is still simmering and threatening to boil over. Uncle G (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Image filter resolution

Sorry you got unanimously outvoted.[3] Would submitting a patch to mw:Extension:Bad Image List adding a user preference to add one or more URLs with arbitrary media files to block instead of using only the centralized list require the approval of the community or just the developers? Line 17 here performs image censorship in the centralized, top-down way that the community and board rejected, so a patch to add a distributed filter list should be in line with community decisions, right? 71.212.249.178 (talk) 03:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

That page is wrong. I voted yes. I've written to the board to try to figure out how to get that updated quickly.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You have an account there, you could simply edit it if it's just a transcription error... Platonides (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember my password. I requested it hours ago but it hasn't arrived.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Closing discussion that appears to be going off track
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You said only a few weeks ago on Twitter that you would write it yourself and turn it on tomorrow if you could. What made you change your mind? JN466 12:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC) Indeed. Just days ago you were tweeting that you supported the filter. What changed your mind, Jimbo? --Larry Sanger (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC) Considering he has just stated the page is incorrect, clearly nothing has changed his mind. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC) The page says he voted against rescinding the filter resolution. Above, he says he voted for rescinding it, so that the vote was completely unanimous. He now seems to be opposed to a filter. He has changed his mind since he tweeted his support for a filter. Again, Jimbo, why? --Larry Sanger (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC) @Larry Sanger, I have asked that my private information be taken down by a moderator of the Wikipedia criticism cite you are a trustee of. I feel endangered by this behavior. Do you not support the removal of information that can be used to out me? If so, why not? NewtonGeek (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC) Two weeks ago. John lilburne (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I strongly support the creation of a personal image filter. I worked very hard to reach a compromise resolution which does not close off the possibility of real progress on this. SJ and I will be releasing an FAQ about this soon (tomorrow, I think, but time zone differences may mean a delay of a day or so). In my view, stated vigorously at the board meeting, an early version of the resolution would have been interpreted incorrectly as the board rejecting the image filter completely.

What I think we can do is convene a small group of people (design by massive wiki discussion tends to suck) to design a very lightweight solution, taking into account and resolving genuine and thoughtful objections, and hold a project-wide vote to get a clear instruction for the Foundation. I am confident that this can take place relatively quickly.

I think it important to note publicly that an early version of the resolution was, in my opinion, deeply disrespectful to the community. At least some senitments were expressed that we actually should reach "closure" on this and pass a resolution that would cause the community to think that they should not work together on a new proposal. Those sentiments did not carry the day.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm really interested in the proposal. But i have to hope that you thought it trough until the end and that it is a real compromise. Otherwise conflict would be unavoidable, again. PS: Are the readers involved this time? --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 15:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I should mention that my request for a simple user script is still open. See User:Wnt/Personal image blocking for the idea I've presented, which tries to address user demand while avoiding the ideological issues I have with the officially proposed image rating system. Wnt (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should read commons:File:ResourceLoader Wikimania 2012.pdf too. Anything which adds a user preference requires a gadget, doesn't it? 71.212.249.178 (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You guys seem to be acting super confrontational about this. If someone personally wanted to filter images, is it bad for us to allow that? Also, the idea of centrally maintained image filtering might have been rejected, but what if someone else you trust has a list that you like and would like to have your filtering based on? Seems reasonable to me. Anyway, get back to your Jimbo-bashing. -- Avanu (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Rather grow up and stop the Jimbo-bashing. This is a fairly important topic, yet as you support the notion of filtering images, you show yourself as an ass! And that image is getting through with astonishing clarity. Filter your conduct. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Do you get enough sleep? I only asked that if a person wants to filter what they see, how is that bad? -- Avanu (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry Avanu, my frustration is directed at Larry Sanger. Even so it was out of line. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

All parties are correct enough for now. Just wait six months down the road when teachers give young wikipedians urls to long lists of porn images. I have a feeling I'll be in for it about then if I don't come up with some cryptological function which can only be decoded by humans past a certain level of puberty. I wonder what the karmic rewards for solving that one amount to. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry. Jimbo says he strongly supports having a personal image filter by cancelling the Board's longstanding direction to implement one. If that is strong support, what would be opposition? JN466 17:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I fought hard for a compromise resolution. I only agreed to a resolution that does NOT block further progress.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the state of the art of filtering internet porn. The bad news is, it doesn't work. The good news is, that doesn't matter. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right about the efficacy of filters, especially as Wikimedia is concerned. The Commons bestiality video was accessible on the computers in my son's school. --JN466 17:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, so now if any kid at that schools sees another one, they will know what it's called and be able to talk about it with their parents, teachers, or the police. It is very unlikely that it will influence their lifestyle choices. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The notorious unreliability of algorithmic filters of the entire Internet appears to me to have virtually nothing to do with our design problem. The problem of figuring out how to filter hundreds of billions of different images with completely random and possibly misleading clues is a very hard one. Our problem is a very easy one. There are only about 2 million categories on commons. There are a few hundred to a few thousand categories with NSFW images. Even taking a very cautious approach to what to include would be a big improvement on the current situation for those users who find something like this useful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It sounds as if you support some kind of filter but a different kind from what was proposed. Was an "algorithmic" filter proposed? I'd agree that one would expect anything algorithmic to be unreliable. I don't know what's been going on in discussions about this. Has it been proposed to ask every person who uploads a picture to click on something saying it's unsuitable for small children if it is? Maybe with a link to a page of guidelines on what might be considered unsuitable? Michael Hardy (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

....and presumably clicking on "unsuitable for children" at the time of uploading would be a decision that's subsequently editable by other users and subject to discussion. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Except that would be both medical and legal advice, and both completely wrong[4][5][6] and subject to wide variation in jurisdictions, respectively. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The new resolution seems to be rescinding the request to the Executive Director to implement a filter but isn't reversing the board's support for the concept. It seems the board won't be imposing a filter on the projects, but does that prevent en.wikipedia from implementing one, or the foundation from supporting en.wikipedia in doing that? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The board pulled back from ordering the Foundation to implement a specific version. I only agreed to that decision because it was made clear that we (the community) can still develop something and get consensus for it. The ball is now in our court to design something broadly popular. I don't think that's going to be hard to do.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I sure hope it happens here. And I have wanted this for a long time. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Any member of the community who knows PHP and Mediawiki can do it. I hope you get it right. Maybe whatever fetches the blacklist should use a special HTTP user agent string so the best filter sources don't give away lists of porn. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo, do you have any thoughts about a process for discussing and deciding this? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Below I link to a page where I hope we can discuss in a productive way a design that will garner widespread support from the community. Once those who are in favor of a filter have done that (assisted by people who are skeptical but for particular design reasons that can be solved) then I think we should reach out in good spirit to people who have expressed strong opposition. Some people will be unreasonably opposed and we will be unable to get their support. But a great many who have been opposed have been opposed, in my view, because of misleading FUD spread by people who have no idea what they are talking about. An outreach program with a very clear and simple design that anyone can understand, a design which answers as many legitimate objections as possible, ought to change the minds of most of those people. Once we are comfortable that we have something that will be popular, we can hold an RfC about it. Possibly this RfC can be for all languages, or possibly the RfC can be for English Wikipedia. It doesn't really matter because I advocate that each language hold their own vote about turning it on or off, so if English Wikipedia strongly asks for it, I believe the Foundation will develop it and let us vote on using it - and the other languages can respond as they wish. (But I believe that a good design will be so uncontroversial that it will be adopted everywhere quite quickly.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll believe it when I see it. Until then, it is just more words on the topic without anything actually happening. JN466 02:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Personal image filter

I'm starting a page where I hope to see a constructive discussion of the desired characteristics of a personal image filter, with a view towards getting a very high degree of community support for the concept. User:Jimbo Wales/Personal Image Filter with discussions at User_talk:Jimbo Wales/Personal Image Filter. I'll kick the main page off in the next few minutes with some initial thoughts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbo Wales (talk • contribs) 19:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Also lowercase redirect: User_talk:Jimbo Wales/Personal image filter. --Wikid77 23:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I've tried to link to the code necessary to put this within reach of any intermediate level MediaWiki programmer, and I have estimated that the task requires no more than four pages of PHP and comments at present.

It turns out that the possibly sufficient meta:Controversial content/Brainstorming#All-or-none filtering is on a completely reasonable path to constructing a more featureful filter, has advantages including not requiring staff to spend time making legally-precarious judgements (and possibly risking safe harbor provisions in some jurisdictions) about what porn is good for kids. It would also take less than half the work of the best alternative solution. And again, all of that initial work could be used for the best alternative as a second step. User talk:Jimbo Wales/Personal image filter#keep it simple. 71.212.249.178 (talk) 07:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

"Olympic Games" (grammatical number)

Comments are welcome at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#"Olympic Games" (grammatical number) (version of 22:56, 15 July 2012).
—Wavelength (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Login on main page

Jimbo, just a thought: Maybe you could throw the login link on the main page so that, well in particular me (and maybe a few others),people do not have to type in a letter or such to get to the login part. Again just a thought. Good day to you!Keystoneridin (speak) 04:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're suggesting here. The "log in" link is available from the corner of every page by default for logged-out users. It's in the upper-right corner next to a link that reads "Create account". --MZMcBride (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

People opposing those who talk here

Today, there was another chilling comment, "most prominent idiosyncracy is the amount of time he spends on Jimbo's talk page". Actually, that was the 2nd such comment, where one was made months ago, and I chose to wait to mention it. However, 2 such comments, posted months apart, indicate to me, "Where there's smoke, there's fire". Other people have written similar against talking here. Perhaps you might wish to reserve comment on this topic, or {hat} the discussion. However, I wonder if other editors have come forward, to report similar comments. I have studied "passive-aggressive" behavior and how it can deter people without direct threats. Meanwhile, I am wondering exactly how many people oppose ideas, or delete pages, simply because they were discussed here. I try not to maintain an "enemy's list" because it seems too negative; however, it is a good idea to beware known dangers in the backyard. People get bitten but knew the danger was there. I also remember, "Don't feed..." so perhaps this discussion should be closed, in due course. -Wikid77 13:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I don't like it, enough said. It's a bizarre argument if you really think about it - that someone's comments should be discounted because they talk to me often.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Fine, we can move on to other issues. -Wikid77 14:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

More pillars

In wondering why these bottlenecks persist (slow edit-preview for 2 years), I have been remembering the strategy for "continuous improvement" (with Kaizen and all). Basically, the underlying values of a system, the pillars, must be set to favor, to empower major improvements. Perhaps some new pillars: Performance, Progress, and Readership.

• Performance: Even the word "wiki" mean "fast" and everyone should worry about performance, otherwise it is no longer "Wiki-" anything. Hence, we have articles on Egypt/Israel that need 30-40 seconds to edit-preview. That ain't wiki. If processes drop into 7-level approval steps before allowed into mainspace, that is no longer fast. Let's coin the term, now, to beware when it turns "Sicki-" (easy to remember!) and needs treatment to regain health as a wiki. The value of Performance is not be belittled, but instead becomes a core pillar.

• Progress: I was warned, many years ago, of the adage, "People dislike change". That means: if you hold a vote to change something, the election will typically decide "no". I think we have enough evidence to confirm that adage certainly seems true. The whole driving force for progress must be an underlying value in the system. It is no longer wise to ask people if they will allow change; instead, it must be guaranteed, where Progress is an underlying value.

• Readership: WP promises "anyone has access" and if the readers say that it is too slow to bear, then that is another reason to make improvements. Now, the concerns of the readers become a major value in the WP system, another pillar.

More later. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Quote Source

İ know that you probably get a lot of these but in a watch shop there is a quote from you "Others called it impossible...I called it Wikipedia." Can you link me to the source please? W.D. 18:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• There are many sources for "Some called it..." - see Google Search for the phrase: "Some called it impossible, I called it Wikipedia". -Wikid77 18:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The source is the advertisement, because that's where I said it. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Help!

I am beleaguered by several editors who have too much time on their hands, too much interest in attacking and dragging down another editor, me. I am an experienced editor, apparently in the top 30 of wikipedia editors by article count, and am interested in innocuous, boring topics of historic sites, honestly just to have a hobby that avoids controversy.

I took a complete six month break from Wikipedia to do other things, just ended recently, rather than appeal an overly-long, arguably-not-justified block. There's a history of AFDs, ANIs and other actions against me, and new ones happening now: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Boniface Cemetery, Wrought-Iron Cross Site‎, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Doncram at it again.

In the ANI proceeding, an editor who has initiated multiple previous ANIs seems to have completely gotten it wrong with accusations he made in opening this ANI, and that has been clarified and the article he disputed is resolved. But he is going on with other accusations, piling it on. I can't deal with round-the-clock participation in legal processes. That is what this editor and some others like to do, to drag others down and in. I am afraid the general strategy is to follow, to attack and to goad, and to raise ANI reports, AFDs, other actions. The general impression given is then that I am causing disruption. I am not. It has been pointed out by several others that there would be no disruption, if the critics just backed off. I don't know how to get them to stop. The ANI forum is their forum, with their chums and often having obnoxiously chummy in-jokes at expense of others, like a horrible cliche of an exclusive men's club. ANI draws in uninvolved others who make off-the-cuff judgments, uninformed by the long history and the facts. I believe that the Arbitration board would decline a case on this, and I don't fancy a long drawnout legal process with diffs, etc, though I could provide a few hundred or few thousand if necessary . The pattern is simple: I am creating and developing articles and list-articles on innocent topics, and they are following and harassing.

This one editor and another involved are highly invested in proving me wrong, in establishing justification for their past and present behaviour. I think that they are so compromised in that motivation that they ought to be banned entirely from following me.

Could you possibly please take a look, and consider some kind of intervention?

My current userpage summarizes most of what I have been working upon recently.

sincerely, --doncram 22:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

*waves from the sidelines* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Sarek, given how deeply involved you are here, it's a bit disingenuous to wave "from the sidelines". You're responsible for this situation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I just meant that in the sense of "Hi, I'm here, will participate if called on, otherwise I'll just shut up." And, um, am I responsible for this situation, when Doncram is still creating articles like St. Boniface Cemetery, Wrought-Iron Cross Site is a 3.1-acre (1.3 ha) historic site near Selz, North Dakota that was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1989.
It includes wrought-iron crosses.?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Considering the active ANI discussion, this has the appearance of forum shopping. I would suggest you not create discussions like this while the ANI thread is ongoing. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I unfortunately have to admit that doncram's claim that he's free of issues, and the WP:OTHERPARENT aspect of this is indeed troubling, and having read through reams of diff's has changed my mind about doncram overall. Wow. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It is never forum shopping to let me know about things. Could we please stop dehumanizing people by making that claim?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Sir, with all due respect - it is forum-shopping when he's asking you directly to intervene and over-ride the community, including the current discussion that the community is having. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It is never forum shopping to post on this page. Ever.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Bw, I agree that the user isn't innocent in their actions but neither are many of the others involved. IMO both sides continue to instigate rather than to step back and have escalated this far beyond where it should be. I also don't think its forum shopping by coming here since Jimbo has long said that but I also don't think Jimbo will or should get involved but it may help to give some insights into the goings on at the front lines so to speak. Kumioko (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

As a long-term observer and occasional participant in this multi-year saga, I suppose I should weigh in. Doncram is a long-time and enthusiastic creator of stub articles related to the National Register of Historic Places; usually the places themselves, but also architects, architectural styles, and other related content. Unfortunately, he edits in a style best described as "bot-like". His articles generally read like a database dump from the National Register Information System because (as far as I can tell) that is how he usually writes them. Because of the very rapid rate of creation and the very limited use of sources, they sometimes contain more or less subtle errors of fact. (I remember helping disentangle a biography of an architect which constituted a few scraps of biographical information and a long list of buildings on the NRHP designed by the architect; on closer examination, Doncram had commingled two architects with the same name.) This has been compounded by ownership issues: one of the conflicts I remember was a series of cases where the NRIS database held a year, say, "1888", but it wasn't clear whether that was the year in which a building was constructed, significantly altered, restyled, or what have you. Doncram dealt with this by writing the articles with a sentence to the effect of "It was built or a significant event happened in 1888"—Orlady will remember the exact phrase, but it was cacophonous, conveyed nothing of value to the reader, and he strongly objected to its removal. Needless to say, this style of writing has been a perennial issue at the NRHP WikiProject, and not surprisingly, his edits have attracted a great deal of scrutiny. At various times, people have suggested that Doncram draft these articles in userspace, incubate them in projectspace, etc., but this is always met with a Bartleby-like reply that he chooses not to.

Because understanding the problem requires a certain amount of historical background, and because people are generally reluctant to slap heavy sanctions on an energetic and good-faith contributor, there's been a fairly broad consensus that something is wrong with Doncram's overall pattern of editing but no consensus on what should be done about it. Because no one's been willing to address the underlying article writing issue, this has developed into a festering war of personalities between Doncram and his most active critics. I think he's correct that he's been subject to more intense scrutiny and is more rapidly criticized than an editor with no history, and that his critics are sometimes unduly quick to provoke him and find fault with him. But treating this as a problem of clashing personalities alone will not solve the problem. At some point, Doncram needs to accept some change in his editing style that will allow him to achieve a modus vivendi with the community. Telling him and his present critics to avoid interaction will only defer the problem to the next critic. Ultimately, it is he who bears the responsibility for this situation.

(But Sarek, you shouldn't be poking him. To quote the Screwtape Letters, "In civilized life domestic hatred usually expresses itself by saying things which would appear quite harmless on paper (the words are not offensive) but in such a voice, or at such a moment, that they are not far short of a blow in the face." Post diffs or speak to the case, but don't let him know you're here just to wind him up for sparring.) Choess (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

commingled two architects with the same name -- John W. Ross, if I remember correctly. But Sarek, you shouldn't be poking him. To quote the Screwtape Letters, "In civilized life domestic hatred usually expresses itself by saying things which would appear quite harmless on paper (the words are not offensive) but in such a voice, or at such a moment, that they are not far short of a blow in the face." Noted. Thanks for phrasing that as you did, it's something to strongly consider. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I recall a similar mindset toward User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). He is about as prolific in certain areas and sometimes has been reluctant to explain his edits. My final opinion is that you have some editors who spend more time often mediating and talking (like me), and some who actually focus entirely on putting the lego blocks in place and sometimes the creation is beautiful and sometimes its just a POS. But I think the answer for these kinds of editors is simply channeling their good effort in a positive way. If they refuse to take *ANY* advice whatsoever, then sure, they can't live here. But in fact, their efforts do a lot to build the walls of this place, and their zealousness can suffocate if you don't poke a few holes in the bag, but it is probably worth it to keep them going. As for Sarek, I believe he has a level 10 or higher pokey-stick, and isn't afraid of using it. If you realize he has a pokey-stick and steadfastly steel yourself to its querulous pokes, you end up dealing very effectively with Sarek. So long story short, we're all human, we have our faults, we have to learn to AGF, deal with it and deal with shit, and just move on productively. Spending time finding fault isn't nearly as helpful as spending time working out a good way to work together. Can you imagine if everyone here had a PhD? :) How much more painful that would be..... I do jest of course... but just a little. -- Avanu (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You needn't be sententious. Avanu, I wasn't being hyperbolic when I said this has been running for years. I agree with you that Sarek is an excellent wielder of a pokey-stick. However, having seen this grow for years, this did *not* start because Sarek got up one morning and decided to go "poke poke poke" for no reason. (I believe Doncram's conflict with Orlady predates Sarek's involvement, for instance.) There has been a steady process of escalation wherein the community has AGF'd until it strained itself, made various suggestions and accommodations to try to get Doncram to edit in a more acceptable fashion, which has had absolutely zero impact. (Well, that's not quite true. There was some attempt to get him to agree to create articles only if he had a source in addition to the NRIS database, IIRC, in the hopes it would encourage him to create more meaningful stubs. He acquiesced to that...and fulfilled the letter, if not the sprit, by adding a lengthy, verbatim quote from the National Register nomination to each article he creates.) "learn to...deal with shit and just move on productively?" Guess what? That's exactly what you're looking at! Because years of coaxing, pleading, nagging, and needling to try to get Doncram to "work together" with other editors have produced no discernible impact on Doncram's editing, the community "deals with shit" by submitting his work to aggressive scrutiny, secure in the knowledge that there will usually be something there worth correcting. All of the cheerful cooperation and rapprochement you've suggested has been attempted long ago, and Doncram has stolidly plowed through it. Choess (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for seeming sententious, good word by the way, first time I've ever seen it. I wasn't trying to imply that Sarek was the primary, secondary, or anything close to that in terms of blame here. Perhaps it was wrong of me to mention him since it seems to have sidetracked my point. I also can tell that a lot of people have been trying to work with the guy and it seems like their patience is worn thin. I was only trying to suggest that we find a good way to channel this guy and help people feel less intensity here. Sorry if I was unclear. -- Avanu (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for being gracious, and I know you meant well. A calm, dispassionate voice is always appreciated when frustration runs high. For myself, I'm not just frustrated because these sketchy sub-stubs keep appearing, but because I feel like we've hovered so close to a solution for so long. I think even the people who have severely criticized him see a lot of value in Doncram's energy, but somehow persuading him to change course and firm these up such a little never seems to take. Maybe Dennis Brown is right--we should just convene an RFC (Gah! Time-Sucking Black Hole of Diffs!) and run with things. Thanks for trying to help with the problem. Choess (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I see a suggestion that Doncram be "channeled" and I rush to say that this is the wrong direction to be taking. One of the interesting challenges (and frustrations) in working with Doncram is that he is a very capable contributor (it takes brains and creativity to come up with lines like "was built or has other significance in 1888" and the massive outpourings of words that he produces in his defense when his work is questioned or challenged), in addition to being highly motivated and productive; he isn't the kind of eager editor with limited capacities whom others seek to "channel." He's too good to be channeled by others -- by how does it happen that someone of his apparent abilities so persistently fails to grasp the issues that his editing raises for so many others? --Orlady (talk) 02:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I made some attempts to inquire about his philosophy of editing etc. during one of these episodes some time back, but came away without much insight. Were the project further along, I would suggest asking him to set up an NRHP backend on WikiData, where many of the qualities that irritate people here would be transformed into virtues. There may be glimmerings of a greater philosophical question here: why is it that vast energy and productivity in the Wikipedia sphere often seem to be accompanied by obstinacy and inflexibility? Choess (talk) 02:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'd just like to comment that the dispute here falls into a pattern that seems to recur frequently, where one editor who values quantity of edits more than quality comes into conflict with other editors who value quality over quantity. It might be worth thinking about whether there is some principled way of addressing such conflicts. Looie496 (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally I value the quantity of quality edits. (That is supposed to mean that the problem with mass creating editors is not the quantity but the frequent sloppiness accompanying mass creation, which creates problems for other editors to cleanup). Editors who both manage to follow basic policies and create many articles generally don't run into problems. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The solution is obvious. We fork Wikipedia into a 'quality' one, and a 'quantity' one (with appropriate policies for each), and then let the readers decide which they prefer... ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't say that Andy, the thought of the fact that it already happened and that now quantity is all that is left is too saddening to bear.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Aargh...I just spent two hours crafting a comment which I lost in an edit conflict because I'm so rusty. Here goes again.

I hesitate to comment because my opinions are often discounted due to the fact that Doncram and I have edited together in the past, and they perceive us to be friends. Whether we're friends or not, I have been an observer and I have things to say.

Mainly, my point is that yes, Doncram has repeatedly edited in this systematic, "bot-like" way. And? When he started, and Wikipedia was newer, these edits seemed to be welcomed as an integral part of building a wiki. Now they seem to be cause for editors with the sensitivity that nothing should go into mainspace until it's complete to drive him out. As Kumioko says at the ANI, "that is the nature of Wikipedia, someone adds some info, someone else modifies it and over time the article gets developed. I'm not sure what in the Wiki concept is not clear." Thank you, thank you, thank you. I have said in essence this same thing over and over again in comment at various discussions, most recently in my first comment at a discussion of why there aren't more women editors at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/St. Boniface Cemetery, Wrought-Iron Cross Site, where I said, in part that the editors who disapprove of Doncram, "in my experience, want to insist that every editor complete every aspect of an article before moving it to mainspace, thus going against the very heart of what a "wiki" is supposed to do, which I believe is to allow each person to contribute with their strengths." (And, by the way, when did "bot-like" become a bad thing? Aren't bots used in Wikipedia all the time?)

Choess says above that "There has been a steady process of escalation wherein the community has AGF'd until it strained itself, made various suggestions and accommodations to try to get Doncram to edit in a more acceptable fashion." Acceptable to whom? Acceptable to a few vociferous editors who don't like his chosen editing style? Or acceptable under the "rules" of Wikipedia? Because as far as I can tell, other than when his frustration has led him to edit warring, Doncram does not consistently do anything against the "rules". Some of these editors don't like stubs at all. Would Wikipedia be where it is now without stubs? Some of them object to his correct statements which reflect the ambiguity of his source. Isn't some small amount of correct but vague information better than none at all? Some contend that what he produces doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Aren't they missing the point that Wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopedia? It's a WORK IN PROGRESS!

I know I had other pertinent stuff in my original edit, but it's late and I'm tired and frustrated. I'm frustrated because this whole discussion reminds me of all the things that I used to love about Wikipedia, and of all the reasons I basically quit editing. I firmly believe that if there's a shortage of editors at Wikipedia it's because of editors like the contentious voices who refuse to "live and let live", but instead insist that everyone contribute some minimum level of article that includes aspects that do not reflect their strengths or interests. If you let me contribute what I'm good at and I enjoy, then Wikipedia is a fun hobby that has the added benefit of adding something constructive to information readily available on the Internet. If you insist that I include in my contributions things that I find extremely tedious or tiresome, then it's a job, and since you're not paying me, I quit. Lvklock (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

"It is never forum shopping to post on this page. Ever."

Can I make the same ruling on my talk page? Why or why not? Hipocrite (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You really can't, because Jimbo's statement glosses over the reality and dynamics of this page's importance. He may not consider it forum shopping to post on this page, but many of the 'go ask Jimbo' questions are entirely too-thinly veiled attempts to draw attention to something, since this is one of the most (and most eclectically) watched talk pages, is watched by a lot of people holding positions of responsibility, and it has the historic open invitation from Jimbo. That is, while it may or may not be forum shopping since it is not a decision-making page, posting here will more often have the net effect of canvassing. But the larger question should really be... is this really a bad thing? In a situation that works by consensus, the current "loser" in any discussion has no disincentive to attract a larger audience, because more people can't usually provide a worse outcome, and the larger a discussion, the higher the likelihood of a "no consensus" outcome. The winners in a WP:CONLIMITED discussion, of course, benefit from such a dispute not being publicized widely. I'd actually think a more apt comparison is that posting to Jimbo's talk page quite often parallels a Hail Mary pass by someone "losing" a discussion. Jclemens (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The Holy Relic of Jimbonaeus Walesimus is one of the more powerful in the Hallowed Crypt of Vagaries and Ineffables. With one wave, thine enemies may be smitten by an ignoration of all rules and precepts, while onlookers verily say mighty loads of trouts can be cast among us in all directions. Truly even the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch dost pale in comparison to the slightest glimpse of the Relic. No shopping was done by him who brought forth his concern before the Relic, and yet many would yet say it was shopping nonetheless. Truly such paradox can only be contained herein. -- Avanu (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Although I don't agree, I think Jimbo's intention is to have an 'open-door policy' where there are no restrictions to the use of his talk page.--TP (alt) 01:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

But that doesn't change the fact that many editors use his talk page as an attempt to forum shop in order to try and overrule some other incident. Silverseren^C 02:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Many editors attempt it. It rarely works. More often, it simply attracts more attention to the underlying issue, to the detriment of the person posting here to avoid accusations of 'forum shopping' - and asking Jimbo to "consider some kind of intervention", as above, is exactly the type of posting that tends to boomerang most. I think it often works as a sort of safety valve - and sometimes (rarely) posting here may help us focus on the real issues, rather than the endless bureaucratic nonsense that so often dominates elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

What I would say is that it has worked less over time, which I ascribe to the increasing political maturity of the community.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)