User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Commons is broken - topless boys edition

I started a discussion on the Commons admin noticeboard about dozens of recently uploaded images of boyscouts that had been uploaded from Flickr by User:MaybeMaybeMaybe using a bot mechanism. Children are not able to give consent in the sense required by law or by COM:IDENT. The fact that many of these uploads depict topless boys is an additional COM:IDENT issue. Neither of these situations is well-covered by COM:IDENT, but it is a moot point since users uploading Flickr images via the bot do not seem to get any guidance about which images may or may not be acceptable on Commons.

Instead of deleting the images or looking at my concerns, I have been attacked, as usual, by User:Russavia and User:Mattbuck. To my surprise, User:Fæ has shown up to claim that I am accusing the user of pederasty. While I continue to believe that MaybeMaybeMaybe deliberately chose these images from the larger set of images because they showed topless boys (this run of 24 consecutive uploads of topless boys suggests it is more than coincidence), there is no reason why they cannot upload such images so long as they meet the rules of Commons. These images do not, which is why I started the thread. It was Russavia and Fæ who brought up insinuations about these uploads in order to attack me.

Pointing out problems on Commons is like being an unwitting actor in a theatre of the absurd performance. Is it time to shut it down and start again? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This was my sole contribution to the topic:

Sigh - DC, please do what we have told you to do before time and time again - nominate images for deletion and/or talk to the user. There is no need for this topic at all other than you grandstanding. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I did not attack you, I told you to use the processes Commons has in place for dealing with issues. You seem to have trouble doing this - your solution, on encountering a problem, is to

1. Create a topic here, on Jimbo's talk page on another project;
2. Create a topic on the Commons admin noticeboard.

Neither of these are appropriate fora for getting images deleted, or for facilitating Commons community discussions. Community discussions should take place at the Village Pump, requests that files be deleted should be done by deletion requests (the clue is in the name).

I speak the following as an individual, not a Commons admin - if you really cared about the issue, you would follow the advice that has been given to you (it has been given repeatedly, in several places). Instead, you just use each issue as an excuse to beat on Commons admins, for whatever reason.

You wonder why we don't take you seriously - it's because we don't believe you are being genuine, since you seem to be totally unwilling to actually discuss the issues, preferring instead to just attack Commons users. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's just note that Russavia, a bureaucrat on Commons last time I looked, is now advising DC to only edit Commons when stoned. This puts a whole new spin on the Commons precept that editors should be "mellow". Andreas JN466 02:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Mattbuck, I am more than willing to discuss the issues, that's why I started those threads on the Commons admin noticeboard, after all. Filing individual deletion requests is not discussing the issue. It is hiding the issue. I have tried your methods in the past with no success. It wasn't that I didn't get the result that I wanted, but I got the impression that Commons editors are largely apathetic with regard to process and governance issues. I have found that posting on Jimbo's talk page is actually a more effective way of getting images deleted than filing a deletion review. Russavia keeps a very close eye on this page and deletes anything that might be used to make Commons look bad. And my last thread on Commons was quite effective. Almost all of the copyright violations I mentioned have now been deleted, even these ones. It would be nice if someone would take a closer look at File:Sauna Jen 1.jpg, File:Sauna Jen 2.jpg, and File:Sauna Jen 3.jpg - these are copyright violations with bogus EXIF data, as I told Russavia in that thread. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That interesting misrepresentation of Russavia's comment reminds me of an ANI thread I saw a couple weeks ago in which an editor accused someone of calling his edits "testicles" after rightly being reverted with an edit summary saying "That's bollocks". You'd have to be pretty severely autistic to take that comment literally, and as someone with PDD-NOS even I could tell at first glance it was an attempt at humor. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? For reference, Russavia wrote, "Please don't come to Commons, expecting a fight; which appears to be what you do. If you have to smoke a big, fat spliff to mellow out before coming here, then do so, because the problem you have on this project is the way that you approach issues. [...] But when you come to Commons, please leave that type of attitude behind, smoke a spliff and mellow out. Peace mon." The phrase "That's bollocks" is an established part of the English language, and has a widely accepted metaphorical meaning. Neither applies to the phrase "Smoke a [big, fat] spliff", and I believe you well know it. So take your contrived ad-hominems elsewhere. Andreas JN466 10:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It was readily apparent to me that it was intended as a bit of hyperbolic humor, playing upon the trope of marijuana's calming effect (couldn't tell you whether that's actually true, I've never once tried it and have no intentions of doing so). The overarching message was basically "Chill and work with us, not against us", not a serious admonition to do marijuana before editing Commons. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Balance the bad against the good: As noted above, numerous photos can be deleted, eventually. Meanwhile, the same user had uploaded many Flickr photos of town scenes (with no shirtless boys there), so not every photo causes concern. The child-privacy photos can be deleted, yet we could keep the August 2011 photo of "File:Festung_Hohensalzburg_(6035853940).jpg" (Hohensalzburg Castle) as a stunning, dramatic photo which contrasts the architecture in Salzburg, Austria. Perhaps consider that any person might be your former friend, now The Third Man. As long as there are other people checking the image contents, then the whole will be kept in balance. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That's all very well, but getting some Commons admins to delete mediocre and dubious sexual images is like trying to get water to run uphill. For example, File:Naser al-Din Shah slide 1.jpg (previously mentioned on Jimbo's talk page) survived a deletion debate despite a clear majority of delete votes and comments.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion requests are not votes, and while the direction of consensus should be a guiding factor, it is not a deciding factor, especially when the comments go against policy. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

thumb|Naser al-Din Shah slide 1, [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Naser_al-Din_Shah_slide_1.jpg&diff=83728786&oldid=83716763 kept] by Mattbuck as being of realistic educational value.

Let's just note that you are the Commons admin who kept that file, shown right, believing it to be of educational value. --Andreas JN466 10:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I would hope that we didn't need to go through an administrative maze to ensure dubious photographs are deleted? If these photos are genuinely disturbing - and I would suggest an mass uploading of shirtless children means they are - then Wikipedia must delete them doktorb _words^deeds 08:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

A deletion request is not an "administrative maze", it's the system set up to discuss potential deletion of items which are not eligible for speedy deletion. As I mentioned, the clue is in the name - it's where you request that things be deleted. Again and again we have told DC to use this process, instead they just keep creating new righteously indignant threads on our admin noticeboard. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Mattbuck, I think there's a more important point here. Merely pointing people to the deletion process is not satisfying many of us who are neither prudes nor lunatics. I think that commons needs to reconsider policy here. The issue is human dignity and the treatment of people who have not given consent. That's an important enough issue that, at the very least, policy needs to accomodate speedy deletion followed by a deletion review in cases like this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Individually I wouldn't say that there was any concern about the photos themselves as images. However, there are real problems with images of children being made available under a CC license where neither the parent, nor the child has given informed consent. This is a major problem as the subject, in this case children, effectively lose all control over the image. This is particularly so when the images are tagged 'topless', or 'shirtless' because as I pointed out, in the hatted section on Common, such tags are a magnet for those whose interests are not exactly wholesome. John lilburne (talk) 09:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

How about changing the rules on Commons so that any identifiable photograph of a child under 18 (which these clearly are) would be speedily deleted unless e-mail permission was available? These are not images that should be transferred from Flickr by a bot, as happened in this case.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That sounds very sensible. doktorb _words^deeds 10:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, very sensible. I look forward to seeing someone attempt to get it past the commons admin corps! Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

And here is where such a proposal should go: commons:Commons:Village Pump/Proposals. Please do not add more self-righteous postings to the admin noticeboard. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Would you support such a proposal? If not, why not? And if yes, could I ask you to kick it off at the appropriate place? Thanks. Andreas JN466 11:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

While I sorta agree with the proposal, why should he kick off a proposals that others proposed? --Cyclopia^talk 11:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Because the last thing the proposer some editors here is are going to do is something constructive about it. Formerip (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I've just gone ahead and made the proposal. Everyone's free to comment at Commons:Village pump/Proposals, of course. --Conti|✉ 12:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

We're not here because we're free, we're here because we're not free. There is no escaping reason, no denying purpose. *takes off his sunglasses* -mattbuck (Talk) 12:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

YEEEEEEAAAAAAHHHHHH! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't decided if it's hate or love...but I feel strongly some emotion towards you for providing that clip. --Onorem♠Dil 14:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The sooner we are chugging beer in a Commons Admin free world, and the sooner they realize that they have made themselves irrelevant, the better. John lilburne (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Amend that to "Commons-free world" and I can support your sentiments wholeheartedly. Graphics on WMF servers should be there to illustrate encyclopedia articles, not to warehouse pixels on some wack Bill Gates-meets-Citizen Kane mission to accumulate everything in the world that might be theoretically be someday useful to somebody, commercial or non-commercial, educational or non-educational. Until then, I'm gonna keep using the { {keep local} } template on my graphics uploads and encouraging others to do likewise. Carrite (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Conti for starting this proposal, but while such a change is welcome, it is not needed for the current case. Many of the images under discussion should be deleted simply by applying the current Commons COM:IDENT policy. Images of boys apparently taken in a pool changing room are not acceptable. Same for images taken inside a tent (the policy even uses this scenario as an example of a private place inside a public place). More importantly, as Russavia noted in his very first comment in the discussion I started: "there are COM:IDENT issues in that they appear to have been taken in Germany, where permission will be required for all use". He has not, of course, made any move to delete the files. Yet. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that COM:IDENT currently prohibits uploading a photo of an identifiable half-naked boy taken inside a tent without appropriate permission. We don't need a new policy that would completely prohibit photos of a large crowd outside the Vatican to handle that. It is unfair to hunt through all the new uploads to an entire project for weeks hunting for a set of images to complain about, then post about it, not by an appropriate deletion request, not on the project at all!, but outside the project, then blame people because they didn't delete the offending (but not illegal in Florida) image the second you complained about it. This is true for any image site on the Net - YouTube, Flickr, whatever - if you don't file a complaint with them about an image it's not going to get deleted in a hurry. Wnt (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, I know you operate in a different reality from everyone else, but where did anyone state, suggest, or imply that an image of a topless boy would be illegal in Florida or any other jurisdiction? Please stop with your inflammatory non-sequitors in every thread that I start, and referring to me as the "High Inquisitor". Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Wnt has a point here though. It seems you are far more interested in stirring up dramatics than launching deletion discussions. Personally, I am not surprised that when you say "jump", others reply with "piss off". While you have a point in this case, it becomes difficult to side with you when you choose to be so adversarial. Resolute 17:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

If it is "adversarial" to bring issues to the admin noticeboard so that they can be dealt with, then I am adversarial. I have done more or less the same thing here and it almost always leads to editors working with me to address the issue. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Again and again, we tell you, neither Commons admin noticeboard nor Jimbo's en.wp talk page are not the appropriate places to ask for images to be deleted or to demand new policies. You were directed to the right place time and again, your continued refusal to bring up problems where you have been told they should be brought up leads to the inescapable conclusion that you are interested in trolling rather than the issues. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

No, Matt, I am not interested in "trolling" - I'm interested in getting results. It is quite simply bizarre that you would consider my attempts to inform the community about issues on Commons as "trolling". This is trolling in the same sense that someone who tells you that your car's headlight is not working is trolling. You don't have to thank them, but telling them that they need to put their comment in writing or you won't fix your headlight is not a useful response. If you look at my contributions on Commons you will see that I do nominate images for deletion if it is the image that is the problem. When the issue is more general or involves multiple images and multiple users, that is not helpful. It is actually harmful, since it tends to obscure the problem. I have no doubt that I will be indef blocked on Commons if I keep bringing issues to the community's attention trolling, but that is not my goal. In the short term, I would be happy to see a few simple reforms enacted. The longer term is unclear, because Commons is so broken that it probably needs to be completely rethought and started over. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

If your purpose is to nominate for deletion the photos that violate Commons policy, then you are nearly there. Nominating them, even publicizing the nominations when they don't get proper attention, is a respectable volunteer activity. If your purpose is to prove that "Commons is broken" and should be shut down because it doesn't instantly, without being asked, delete photos that are not illegal (my point with that is not to imply they are, but to suggest that great haste is not formally required) then that is just ridiculous. There's not a publicly editable site on the Web that isn't "broken" by that definition. Wnt (talk) 04:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, thank you for your validation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't classify your actions as trolling either, but WP:POINTy might fit. If I may ask, have you actually proposed any of your hoped for reforms to commons' village pump? Or is your only strategy to run to daddy Jimbo? Resolute 14:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Fae has emailed the person who made the pictures, and - unsurprisingly - they do not want the pictures on commons and are in direct violation of commons policies. [1] Can an admin on commons please delete all these pictures? Now? --Conti|✉ 16:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess we can add that to the list of reasons why these images should be deleted. I wonder if it is long enough yet? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

They've been deleted. Thanks to 99of9 for requesting their deletion, Fae for enquiring with the photographer, and russavia for closing the requests. --Avenue (talk) 08:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

... and to Conti for starting the Village Pump proposal, to FormerIP for chipping in, and to Delicious carbuncle for highlighting the issue and getting additional eyes on the situation ... without which none of this would have happened. Andreas JN466 12:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, but perhaps all it needed was for someone to follow the usual procedure and actually nominate the photos for deletion. Of course that doesn't fit the "Commons is broken" storyline that some persist in pushing here. --Avenue (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

When a web site under the auspices of the WMF has a culture where the local yokels think it is perfectly ok to swipe Flickr images of half-naked children without their parent's/guardian's permission, then yea, "broken" is a quite fitting description. Tarc (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Now, now, Tarc, be civil. Are those "perfectly ok" photos the ones that I mentioned had been deleted a few posts above? --Avenue (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The photos were well over the line and were rightly deleted. There has been an attempt to whip up a dramafest over this, but it is time to move on. The lesson is that COM:PEOPLE issues should be sorted out before uploading images, not afterwards.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that this is just one example, and there are thousands of others just like it. COM:IDENT is routinely ignored in Commons. In my experience, an individual DR without attendant drama stands no chance of being successful. Here is one I made earlier: [2]. Very clear message from the Flickr account holder that she does not want her images on Commons because of COM:IDENT issues. Kept by the admin. This one had to be nominated six times, even though the photographer made it abundantly clear that the models were absolutely horrified to have these private images on Commons. The files were only deleted after a long Commons-l mailing list thread in which a WMF board member and several WMF staff members got involved. This is too much bloody effort just to get people in Commons to do the right thing, and that is why the Commons administration is indeed broken. Andreas JN466 15:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, they were deleted after a bright spotlight was aimed into the cockroaches lair. The point is, it never should have come to this in the first place. Someone puts his own pictures in his own Flickr stream, and some Commons yahoo comes along and copies them. How long would it have been before they were categorized into commons:Category:Male toplessness ? Or were they in their already prior to deletion? Click on that link right now, but make sure to tilt your screen to the side if you're at work. Tarc (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

There is something I don't understand: Werent' these latter photos Andreas is discussing already public on Flickr under a CC license, or not? Because if these photos were publicly accessible under a CC license, all this discussion is nonsense: copyright allows us to do whatever we want provided we comply with the license. If they didn't want their pics public, they shouldn't have uploaded them.--Cyclopia^talk 16:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

COM:IDENT is a separate issue from copyright, and Flickr is such a rummage sale of images that the licenses should be taken with a pinch of salt anyway. Best practice is to ask the uploader for permission beforehand, particularly if children are involved.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

What Ian said. The issue is not one of copyright, but one of subject or parental consent for pictures taken in a private context, per commons:COM:PEOPLE. If you take a picture of a 12-year-old boy in a swimming pool changing room, or an upskirt shot of a five-year-old girl, then you are the copyright holder, but you do not have subject consent for hosting the image on Commons (which in this case means parental consent). To have your image on Commons, you need both (in theory at least, though not in actual practice). An additional complication is that many of these cases are transfers of anonymous Flickr uploads. Frequently, the accounts who put the images on Flickr end up blocked there shortly after, because they lied about being the authors, having in fact grabbed the images from elsewhere, like family holiday blogs. Commons however usually insists that all that is needed is that the images were available on Flickr with a CC licence on a given day, regardless of whether the Flickr account has since been suspended, and in my experience Commons admins will not entertain subsequent challenges on copyright grounds. (This is known as Flickrwashing.) Andreas JN466 17:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

That reads like the defence that was put up by the perverts and predators that were defending creepshot and jailbait on reddit. Congratulations in importing the nonsense here. John lilburne (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not clear. I was not talking of the kids' pics. I was talking about the other deletion discussions JN466 linked, like this. Yes, if these pictures weren't uploaded by the authors, then it's different. But if they were indeed uploaded by the author, as it seems from this diff, then the author can complain how much she wants, but still she has no right to ask us to remove the pic. She should have thought about this beforehand. --Cyclopia^talk 22:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Read http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people and commons:COM:PEOPLE – Commons is supposed to be so ethical as not to host images taken in a private location without the consent of the people depicted in them, and certainly not over their strenuous bloody objections. Wikimedia's mission is not to make image authors miserable by appropriating, against their will, the images they took in private locations. Andreas JN466 23:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't get it. If people upload stuff on a public website with a CC license and acknowledge so, they have no right to bitch when we host them. Why are always us the ones who have to bend over backwards? --Cyclopia^talk 14:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

If you see not having a right to do as you please with something someone else created in their own private space as "bending over backwards", and you really don't get what this is about, then I assure you the deficiency is all yours. Certainly, the WMF board got it, as evidenced by their 10:0 vote in favour. Not one of them took your view. I am especially aware of the difference between your statement, "they have no right to bitch", and the board's request that we "Treat any person who has a complaint about images of themselves hosted on our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encourage others to do the same." I suggest you ought to think about that for a couple of minutes. Andreas JN466 15:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, what part of "upload stuff on a public website with a CC license and acknowledge so" is not clear? Because the resolution you link talks of " which may be released under a free license although they portray identifiable living persons in a private place or situation without permission." - which is a totally different case. If I photograph someone in my home and then release the pic under CC without their permission, then I'm surely in the wrong, and that's why the resolution makes sense. But if I photograph myself and then I put it on Flickr under CC, I have no possible right to decide what's done with the pic in agreement with the license. --Cyclopia^talk 15:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

"They've been deleted." No, they haven't - Russavia deleted only the ones which were specifically mentioned in the original thread. When I pointed out that there were more, his response was "I have deleted 24 images. As far as I am concerned, that is all that is covered by my close....take them to DR". When I questioned this, he closed the discussion with the edit summary " there is nothing more to do here", but then thought better of it. Why a deletion request closure for a single image can be applied to 24 images but not the remainder of the images is a mystery that I will leave for the reader (hint: Russavia is only interested in protecting Commons from criticism, not actually addressing any of the problems, and is really more interested in trolling than anything else, which is why he started uploading Flickr images of topless children after I started the discussion. Oops. I guess I spoiled the mystery). Although I used the example of MaybeMaybeMaybe's uploads to highlight the issue of COM:IDENT and children, I don't have any quick way of identifying those images out of the literally thousands (yes, thousands) of images uploaded by him with the Flickr upload bot in the last few days. I did helpfully point out that some could be found in the Commons category "Topless boys", but even those have yet to be deleted. If anyone continues to think that the problem here is that I personally haven't filed a deletion request, they are missing the big picture. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, in fairness, it does make you look a bit foolish, although how much of a problem that really is is not for me to say, obviously. Formerip (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

What on earth kind of ill-informed comment is that? How is pointing out that there is a problem on Commons that the Commons' admins are unable/unwilling to address unless forced to "foolish" ? Tarc (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Trouble is, that's a hypothetical question.

The OP linked to a discussion where they had identified images in likely breach of Commons policy. The problem was immediately recognised, the images were nominated for deletion and then deleted. Commons may be broken, fine or it may need oiling, but this has been a badly botched illustration. Formerip (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Two things, FormerIP. One, I don't mind looking foolish. Two, your summary of the situation is completely and utterly wrong. For one thing, some unknown number of those images have yet to be deleted. For another, it was Conti's post on COM:AN which got the images deleted, presumably alerted by this discussion. By the way, thanks Conti, for this and for starting the discussion at the Village Pump. Good luck. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

DC, the files were nominated for deletion around 1 pm UTC on 27th. That's nine hours before you started this discussion, so I don't think the causal link you suggest can be all that real. The votes were almost all unanimous and it was actually your pal Fae who precipitated the early closes by positively establishing a lack of consent. The thing that's really broken here is your glasses.

For clarity, when you say "some unknown number of those images have yet to be deleted" do you mean that you know of further problematic images, or just that it's not impossible? Formerip (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Whether it is or isn't a good example is irrelevant. As Andreas says above " Frequently, the accounts who put the images on Flickr end up blocked there shortly after, because they lied about being the authors, having in fact grabbed the images from elsewhere, like family holiday blogs. Commons however usually insists that all that is needed is that the images were available on Flickr with a CC licence on a given day, regardless of whether the Flickr account has since been suspended, and in my experience Commons admins will not entertain subsequent challenges on copyright grounds.". In other words, what is actually needed - and has been for some time - is some Commons admins living in the actual real world and possessing some clue, and quite frankly there appears to be a particularly high number at that location that are failing on both criteria. Black Kite (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think whether or not it's a good example is the main issue. I'd guess no-one would doubt that Commons processes could be improved, although exactly how bad they are is a question shrouded in hysteria on the one side and defensiveness on the other. What I wonder is whether the best approach is to spin bullshit. And, if you do, whether you should make sure you don't fall on your face. Formerip (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It's only not a good example because of Fae's quick actions. But even then one could argue that the first admin with clue who saw that collection of images (via the deletion request or wherever) should have nuked them on the spot. That would have happened here - why can it not at Commons? And even in the discussion we above we have idiotic statements like "Werent' these latter photos Andreas is discussing already public on Flickr under a CC license, or not? Because if these photos were publicly accessible under a CC license, all this discussion is nonsense: copyright allows us to do whatever we want provided we comply with the license. If they didn't want their pics public, they shouldn't have uploaded them.". I'm not entirely sure why we allow anyone with that attitude to edit at all, although at Commons nothing would surprise me. Black Kite (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The apparent lack of an effective speedy process for this type of image is something that's being constructively discussed on Commons at the moment. And I agree its an issue. But that's rather separate from the thesis of OP, which is the same ol' "look at these disgustin' images, Common's won't do nuttin' about it, where's my gun?". You jumped it is the answer to that. All we have here is a null hypothesis.

Dumb comments on Commons are also not the issue. We also get those here, quite a lot. In both cases, discussions are a sausage machine and the only thing to consider is what comes out. Formerip (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that everything at Commons appears to be discussions rather than actions. There are situations, of which this is one, in which Commons admins need to be seen to fixing problems rather than talking about them. However, if an efficient speedy process for this type of thing does emerge, then all well and good. But I won't be holding my breath given some of the comments from Commons admins above. Black Kite (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

FormerIP, since you seem to be trying your best to spin this into something that it is not, let's really look at the sequence of events:

• 06:20, 27 November 2012 - I start the discussion on COM:AN
• 11:25, 27 November 2012 - Russavia (the first person to reply in that thread) notes "they appear to have been taken in Germany, where permission will be required for all use" (i.e., they are in violation of COM:IDENT and should be deleted on that basis)
• 13:16, 27 November 2012‎ - Commons admin 99of9 starts deletion request for the seven images specifically mentioned in my original post
• 22:17, 27 November 2012 - after Russavia archives part of the COM:AN thread in the middle of a discussion, I start a discussion here

That's probably enough for you to get the idea. Here you have an admin stating the reason why these images should be deleted and then refusing to delete the images and actively stifling discussion until someone starts a deletion review (which 99of9 had already done). When Russavia does delete the images at around 20:45 on 28 November, he cites the Flickr user's statement that " were photographed in a private place". Note that consent is required in Germany even for photos taken in public places as far as upload to Commons is concerned and recall that Russavia himself made that observation more than 24 hours earlier. In addition, Russavia states that the Flickr user says "they do not want to have them hosted on Commons". Note that it is generally very difficult for uploaders to have their files deleted and some Commons admins regularly vote against such requests. If it seems like I am singlng out Russavia here, it is only because of his specific actions in this situation. Any Commons admin could have deleted those images. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that neither you or Russavia nominated the images for deletion, but I think that has to do with your respective egos rather than anything worth discussing.

As your timeline shows, you raised the images at COM:AN, which led to them being nominated which led to them being deleted. So the system-test showed a working system. Who, really, gives a shit that Russavia didn't offer to shine your shoes for you. Formerip (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

FormerIP is a "if you want to delete images, you support censorship" sheep-bleater. Now I generally agreed with that anti-censorship position when it came to the Muhammad images issue last year, but after a point the OMG TEH CENSORZ stuff really does cease to be an effective or even meaningful argument. The context matters, which is why I looked at the Muhammad situation and said "this isn't a good case to censor" and why I look at this case of shirtless boys being categorized alongside sexual images of topless men and say "y'know, that's really not OK". It was funny how I was cast as the Bad Guy(tm) last year just because I put some people in their place with some unkind words. What we see here are people like FormerIP and Resolute, the latter another opponent of the Muhammad censorship, knee-jerk ANY attempt to remove ANYTHING. We see now what the real problematic mindset is here... Tarc (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You've made up the idea that I'm particularly anti-censorship in your own head, Tarc. I'm very much opposed to imbecilic, self-regarding drama-wank masquerading as informed comment, which is something and the Muhammad saga have in common. Censorship really is a side issue. Formerip (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

If an image on Flickr contains identifiable people, it is common sense and basic politeness to ask for permission before transferring it to Commons. The wording of commons:COM:PEOPLE should make clear that this is a requirement rather than an optional extra. The current wording is too vague.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

There are at least a couple of problems with that statement, but this is not the best venue to go into all that. If you're concerned about the wording of commons:COM:PEOPLE, please come over to Commons and discuss possible changes there. --Avenue (talk) 10:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You are missing the point here; the bulk of the Commons admins are reluctant to lift a finger to act on any such changes. These are the same people who argued vociferously to keep Beta M, a convicted sex offender, a member of the project. The few sane voices over there are drowned out by the corrupt. Tarc (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about the specific Beta M case, but why shouldn't convicted sex offenders participate to Commons (or any other Wikimedia project), as long as they abide to policies? Do we discriminate people because of their personal wrongdoings? Should everyone disclose their own past before participating here? --Cyclopia^talk 14:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Trying really hard not to be snarky, but if you cant see the problem with a child sex offender working with minors in an area that contains pictures of half-naked children... I dont think anyone here can really help you. Although if Commons cleaned up its content, it wouldnt be so problematic having sex offenders contributing there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec)What about hypothetical pedophiles, Cyclopia? Would you be as equally quick to go on the defensive for such an editor? If not, why? Tarc (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I am "defensive" of deciding the right of everybody to participate on WMF projects only on the basis of their behaviour in the editors' community and benefit to the project. You could be a convicted pedophile, a serial killer, a church burner, a former KKK member, or even all of these things together, but as long as you behave properly with other editors and contribute to the project, I see no reason to ban these people from contributing. Again: should we ask everyone to disclose their past? Should everybody provide proof of having always been a perfectly law-abiding citizen before collaborating to WMF projects? --Cyclopia^talk 14:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You dont hand an alcoholic the keys to the pub and ask them to tend bar. Likewise you dont (knowingly) let a sex offender loose in an environment that caters to their illness. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec)You're on the wrong side of Wikipedia:Child protection, my friend; such editors are banned, no wiggle room. I was hoping to elicit even the tiniest bit of common sense from you...that yes, a hypothetical editor discovered to be a pedo should be booted form the project immediately. As they say, Cyclopia, you never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Tarc (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Really? I guess you haven't been reading this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to the policy. It looks to me like a textbook example of moral panic. I personally think we should give ex-convicts an opportunity to try to become again positive contributors to society, even with something like WMF projects. I would understand topic bans on stuff related to children and sexuality, but if a convict sex offender wants to edit articles about linear algebra, why don't we allow it? Should we reject, hypothetically, contributions by Hans Reiser on the subject of computer science because he's a convicted killer? --Cyclopia^talk 15:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Cyclopia, I deeply respect you as an editor, yet despite initial skepticism I came to side with Delicious carbuncle on that case. The way he presented (and still presents) the issues involved was very confusing - beginning by saying that an editor stated philosophical opposition to age restrictions on viewing sexually explicit material. I had to look up the editor's contributions myself to find the thing that gave me pause (all this is in the discussion there and I think it does no good, maybe harm, to reargue the case here, plus it probably violates WP:Child protection to do so ... and that's a whole other argument; see that page's talk archives also). The problem with DC is that he acts like an autoantibody, raised against a perfectly valid concern of pedophiles on Commons, but cross-reacting against everything from the Shah's waterpark to the very concept of a Creative Commons licensed photo of a person that can actually be reused. He still comes up with a useful catch now and then - mixed in with unacceptable calls to close Commons, institute censorship, and humiliate good editors like Fae. But we can't ourselves overreact and ignore any actual danger to kids - nor should we forget that on a site that anyone can edit, where most of the contributors are anonymous, that only some tiny fraction of the sex offenders present will ever be known to us. Wnt (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, I'm not sure which "case" you are talking about, but I suspect you may have me confused with someone else. Michaeldsuarez, perhaps? As for "the Shah's waterpark" and etc, I don't know what you think you are talking about. Frankly, I've had enough of having to respond to such nonsense posts just in case anyone fails to realize that your words are unrelated to reality. I'm asking for a topic ban. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

From my limited experience with the process at Wikimedia, it appears to be chock-full of thousands or hundreds of thousands of pages of images from people who don't want to pay to store files and who use WM as their personal spank bank. I've asked this before: can anyone tell me the purpose of these images? It appears to be a gallery of drawings by an amateur artist who has no other venue. The only pages using those images are mattbuck's, for whatever reason. Getting rid of these useless pages would free up several servers, but it would cost the labor of millions of editors chained to keyboards for millions of years, since they're being added at an exponential rate. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I think those are quite good, actually, but I don't think that they have any realistic educational use. Personally, I'm more puzzled why Commons allows so much material to be imported from Flickr, when it is already available there under a free license. The user who sparked this latest episode, MaybeMaybeMaybe, has returned to mass-uploading images from Flickr after a brief block (and an early unblock from Russavia). What use anyone will have for dozens of images of small toy bears I don't know. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Well here's the deal, DC: have you ever wondered why homeless people gravitate around public libraries? It's because they're free. It's exactly the same principle with WP and WM: if you offer free space on the ethernet to anyone for a specific purpose, the powerless, the talentless, those pushing an agenda, and the marginalised (for whatever reason, be it sexual or political or any number of orientations) will flock in, attract like-minded individuals, set up communities, and eventually take over large areas and subvert it to their own self-absorbed purposes.

When I was much younger I was very adamantly against any form of censorship or prudery or personal restrictions, but as I look around and see huge areas of the cities littered with discarded needles and used condoms to the extent that my grandchildren can't play in the city parks for fear of accidentally contracting a disease or discovering some couple publicly expressing their sexuality in whatever way they see fit, I tremble to think what my generation will have to answer for in the Galactic Court, if there be such a thing. It's one thing to fight for the publication of Lady Chatterley's Lover or Tropic of Cancer; it's quite another to listen to those who have never lived under any form of censorship condemn any type of restraint on content as a Constitutional issue.

tl;dr: They do it because they can. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

"it's quite another to listen to those who have never lived under any form of censorship condemn any type of restraint on content as a Constitutional issue." - "Strange it is that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free speech but object to their being "pushed to an extreme", not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case." (John Stuart Mill). --Cyclopia^talk 02:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

What's really strange is those editors who misread the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as saying that "Wikipedia shall make no rule governing its content". I suggest you contemplate the differences between the objectives of an encyclopedia and the objectives of political charters.

FYI: if you need something to do the Coprophilia and Dirty Sanchez articles need illustrations. Sum total of human knowledge and all that, you know. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Is this WP:OUTING?

As it's vaguely pertinent to the ongoing arb election, do you Jimbo agree that knowing an editor's first name and their country of residence (or more accurately, surmising it from a Wikipedia account name and residence userbox), is a sufficient amount of personally identifying information that it can be hidden from the community, under the justification of WP:OUTNIG?

I only ask because this is what arbitrator Elen of the Roads seems to believe, and she and others are running around blocking and reverting whistleblowers. The person she is protecting had dumped that account and resumed editting with a new one, in an area where several other editors with similar bahavioural records have started to be topic banned under discretionary sanctions, or retired having seen the writing on the wall (only after many years I might add).

I find it strange that Elen would take such an aggressive approach to a completely implausible risk of outing (and use blocks and threats to suppress even the very mention that she's doing it), at the cost of witholding vital information to WP:AE admins and allowing this user to be examined by AE in the same way his colleagues have, ie with the full behavioural record known and examinable in reference to the others (for obvious reasons).

Thanks to Elen, this user has effectively whitewashed a huge chunk of ther past history. She's given various excuses for this error, probably because at heart she knows she's made a mistake by possibly taking someone else at their word that this user's old account was an OUTing risk, and not investigating the issues for herself. She has previously stated it's all right because he was under no active sanctions at the time of the switch, which is I am sure you can appreciate, totally irrelevent when it comes to reviewing long term patterns of behaviour in a venue like AE.

It's strange because apparently she is the same person who seemed to have no qualms about passing on information posted to a mailing list. Everywhere I go I see people singing her praises and claiming she's the salt of the Earth and would never do a thing wrong. If only she allowed the facts about this case to be known. Perhaps you, Jimbo, are the only person with sufficient gravitas to get a proper explanation from her as to why she's doing this, without being subjected to a block and having your complaints censored. KLP479 (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Worth noting that this is the first and probably the last post by this account - clearly a sockpuppet. Prioryman (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

KLP479, if there is any whisteblowing of substance, it'd be best to email me privately, including diffs and actual proofs. Vague allegations posted by a sockpuppet account aren't really easily actionable. From what you've said so far, I'm not that impressed. (By the way, I have no idea what you are talking about).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid diffs wouldn't make much sense in this situation, due to how it's evolved (over many years) with much of what is said in public now being pretty much cryptic to observers who don't know the full story. The pertinent facts about it are as follows:

• User A was active in a contorversial area for many years
• Having collected a few blocks, User A 'retires' and stops editting
• User B appears, and resumes the same behaviour as A
• It become obvious to some that A=B
• B is asked to publicly link his new account to his old one, as policy demands
• He refuses
• There's lots of dispute at ANI etc
• As it turns out, the fact that A's account name contained his real first name and he'd put a home country userbox on his user page, he apparently realises with the help of some off-wiki communication with User:Alison, that he can claim that he made the switch to protect his identity (basically the only way such a switch can be legitimately hidden from the community)
• B settles on this as his justification for not linking the two, although it's clear to those who care from his earlier statements that this never was his initial motive, and they know full well that a first name and country does not remotely represent an actual risk of OUTing
• There remains no acknowledgement from B that he was A
• Admins at places like ANI just do nothing whenever its mentioned, simply on the basis that Alison occasionally unretires to repeat the OUTING claim and also perhaps because the topic is so controversial they're just conditioned to ignoring the whole thing whenever it comes up. Alison never of course states what actual data this is based on - a simple first name and country of residence), so a cycle develops where anyone new to it either loses interest due to the complexity of even explaining what happened, or otherwise just takes Alison at her word
• Other editors who behave the same way as A, but have never benefitted from this type of history whitewashing, after so many years of subtle gaming and POV pushing inevitably eventually come to the notice of admins who work AE (the topic in question having been the subject of discretionary sanctions for many years), and start to receive topic bans, or retire having seen the writing on the wall for their preferred style of editting
• B continues to pretend he has no prior account (and thus in comparison after a few years as 'B' and haivg learnt how to avoid obvious blocks, now looks like an account in good standing) even to the point of trying to assist his colleagues at AE who were never able to whitewash their history in the same way. To anyone who knows that A was B however, the deception this represents is clear given that they remained interested in the same topic and thus articles and disputes
• I made my latest attempt to highlight this deception once I saw B at AE, and this is when Elen got involved and basically covered the link up with blocks and intimidation
• As far as I can gather, Elen has either taken Alison's claim there's an OUTINg risk as read, or worse, she's taken B's word for it, or she just doesn't care and wants to continue to protect B for reasons other than OUTing while maintaining OUTing as the publicly stated reason because it's the only one that fits any actual polcicy (she for example once said that he has no need to link the two as he was not blocked or under sanctions at the time of the switch, which is of course categorically not what the relevant policy says about it)
• Having noticed what she's done with the mailing list and seeing everyone paint her in a saintly light, I decided to have one more try at having this error rectified by posting here

At the end of the day, all you need to do to act on this complaint is just ask Elen if she recalls this dispute. If she says yes, then ask her why she's protecting B when the information contained on A is clearly not an OUTing risk. If she says no, then I can email you the actual account names of A and B to see if she recalls. Such is the abuse it represents, I'd put money on this being overturned and the accounts being linked per policy if anyone ever actually interrogated her about it, but of course given her position that's been practically impossible for ordinary editors (and as I'm sure you know and Prioryman has so intellectually shown, "SOCK"s can do absolutly nothing on Wikipedia at all, even if they're trying to expose a major major scandal, rather than just a mid-level abuse like this). KLP479 (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

This A and B stuff is utterly worthless. Either e-mail Jimbo as requested or spill it here. Tarc (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't that leave him open to accusations of WP:OUTING himself? Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Emailing me, or ArbCom, with concerns of this nature, naming names, is not WP:OUTING.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• I would have said this was a sock of User:MickMacNee but it's too polite so it's probably User:Hackneyhound. This concerns an instance where an account was renamed because the editor had concerns that they could be identified in real life from the original account. The editor in question has been repeatedly harrassed by socks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Count_Iblis/WikiLeaks  :) Count Iblis (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Iblis, I'm damn fine sure the sock isn't Brews Ohare Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I know, but the issue of whisleblowers came up a few times in this discussion... :) . Count Iblis (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Jimbo, now she's here it's time for Elen to answer some direct questions, and these clearly can only come in response to queries from yourself. She's aware of the account names, and nobody else can do anything about this, clearly. Either she has verified for herself that the user's claimed fears were warranted and met the requirements of WP:OUTING and so permitted an undeclared account change in a controversial topic area, or she can't. Either the decisions she's made in this case can be verified by a trusted person like yourself, or they can't. It's that simple. It's really tiresome to see her continually avoid direct questions about this - let's be clear, her failure to show otherwise not withstanding, the only 'harassment' this user has suffered, has been protests like this at appropriate venues like AE or ANI or, as pointless as it was, her own talk page. She's frankly abusing her position to make personal decisions about what individual users can and can't do, with zero oversight, and whether this goes against concrete policy or not. And in the middle of an election no less. KLP479 (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• PS, if Elen is really concerned about protecting B's identity, why is she going one step further than me and actually naming B on a public page quite easily findable from here? Why is she busying herself with SPI's on me, rather than putting this to bed once and for all and simply proving to someone like Jimbo that A/B's fears about OUTING are remotely justified and that his switch can be backed by policy. The reality is, it isn't, and in fact she's done very little to prevent people connecting B to A since she got involved. It's time she gave an honest appraisal as to why this is. It's time she was fair to the people at AE and the people in the topic area who suffer when A's relevant behavioural history is concealed in this manner while he edits and posts as 'B'. KLP479 (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll donate, but please can these happen first?

Dear Jimbo / WMF / anyone who can help:

1. If an op can bring a linkbot into the #wikipedia-en channel, I will donate $25 upon successfully testing said linkbot in said channel. #wikipedia-de gets to have a linkbot, so why must we miss out?

2. If you speak at the Kansas State University Landon Lecture series on or before Valentine's Day, I will donate a further $200 to the Foundation. However, if it takes place later in the spring semester, I will donate $100.

I have found Wikipedia indispensable all throughout the years so I hope all these can be done if you would like my help.

Thanks kindly, --129.130.37.150 (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Umm... perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think it's appropriate to ask Wikipedia to do something for you--particularly your second request--in exchange for donation money. Greengreengreenred 05:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • ^. --129.130.37.150 (talk) 05:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Because it's undignified, rude and pretentious. — raekyt 05:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
    • ^{To that, as well.} --70.179.167.78 (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
    • It is true--well, as far as I know, it's true--that there isn't a Wikipedia policy about this specific request (though I have not read through all of the policies, so I may be wrong). However, not being in the Wikipedia policies does not make something appropriate for Wikipedia. It's wonderful that Wikipedia has been indispensable for you, and I'm sure it would be cool if Jimbo came to your college's lecture thing, but, IMO, it's not appropriate to have strings attached to donation money. The only thing Wikipedia should do for those who donate money is the same as what it does to everyone: provide the public with notable, informative, encyclopedic articles, free for anyone to edit. Wikipedia shouldn't have to come to the Landon Lecture Series in order to raise the money it needs to survive. Greengreengreenred 08:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• See WP:Bounty board to post your proposals! This is acceptable behavior from donors. Any method that gets Wikipedia donations and doesn't involve giving up POV or having editors with a financial conflict of interest about a specific topic should be OK, as far as I know. Wnt (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

As cost-effective as it might seem for me to spend my time flying around the world to pass "GO" and collect $200, I fear that I'm not available before Valentine's Day to come to Kansas.  :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Whenever you do get around to coming to lecture in Kansas, as anywhere else, you could, at least in theory, ask for the audience to pass out donations while your assistants pass around collection buckets as many fundraisers around the world do quite often. In this way, you would make the WMF way more in each lecture than the $100-$200 originally pledged. And during that donation solicitation portion of the lecture, a screen behind you could show: "You may also make donations from your phone at http://m.wikimedia.org/donate (or the actual mobile URL that receives donations.) This is an idea I share that may save WP and the WMF, so good luck and hope it all works out! =) --70.179.167.78 (talk) 11:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I think most of us have the impression that all we have to do is load the harpoon in the backyard ballista and wait a few months until Jimbo flies overhead. This also works for Santa Claus. Wnt (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Jimbo would do it anyways because it probably costs more to go to Kansas than the donation is. He probably might do it if someone offered a $100,000 or even a $1,000,000.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yup. I don't believe in bribery either - but if you pay me enough, I'm sure my beliefs will change... ;-) Just kidding - I'm sure that Jimbo would like to visit Kansas sometime, though maybe not during the tornado season. It may not be a priority though - and he seems to prefer to spend most of his time at the moment in sunny (what? ROFL...) England at the moment, and any bribes/inducements will at least have to cover a two-way Atlantic crossing, just to break even. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo can come round to my house and mow the lawn at the weekend, and I might consider donating some money to Wikipedia if he does the job properly.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

If anything, it should by lawn. I need the extra help for the community driven efforts to mow my lawn.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 17:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom is fundamentally broken

Jimmy, the motion to remove Elen from the ArbCom and revoke her CU status has failed only because of the number of inactive and recused ArbCom members. This means that a member of ArbCom can disclose everything and anything to the world but not have to worry about having their bit revoked. There is no community process to pick up where the ArbCom's policies fail. This is a patently absurd situation that begs for your remedy. Please don't allow someone who has admitted and been convicted of leaking private information to go unpunished. The above diff represents that ArbCom is fundamentally broken and remedy is urgent. 24.61.9.111 (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The community is currently voting to fill more then half the seats on the committee, and Elen is up for reelection. The community can also amend the arbitration policy if it chooses. The remedy is to vote. Monty₈₄₅ 04:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

A general election is not what this situation calls for. It calls for justice and punishment. 24.61.9.111 (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

preventative, not punitive... - jc37 04:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

So an arbitrator can effect the worst possible violation of trust and get away with it scottfree? That's absurd.24.61.9.111 (talk) 04:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest the in progress election will determine that, or at least, will determine if the community feels this was the "worst possible violation of trust". My sympathies to you on the fact that the lynching you so badly want isn't going to happen. Resolute 14:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Hmmm, what exactly was leaked? Was anyone damaged physically or financially in real life? No. That's the only legitimate reason for occasional use of a cloak of anonymity around proceedings of ArbCom, in my estimation. What was leaked, it would seem, was the hysterical ravings of one soon-to-be-replaced ArbCom member making use of the mailing list away from the fear of community scrutiny to attempt to threaten and bully other members of the committee into specific policy actions or to face political consequences from the shrieking ArbCommer... Elen doesn't need to be suspended, she needs a barnstar for bringing such preposterous behavior to light. Wikipedia needs to leave the notion that anonymous contributions are good and that secret deliberations are good. Time for this project to grow up. —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR, USA ///// Carrite (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• ArbCom is fundamentally broken, but not because the motion to remove Elen from the ArbCom and revoke her CU status has failed. Arbcom is broken because some arbitrators act as heartless, thoughtless robots while others are simply afraid to show they are still humans. The same applies to many administrators. The more power a person has, the less capacity he has to take another person’s perspective. The way the regime works now it is probably all but impossible to be an arbitrator and to remain a human being at the same time. Maybe Xeno and Iridescent have failed as arbitrators because they've chosen to remain human beings. Elen tries to remain a human being but sometimes being an arbitrator is more important for her. Self-betrayal is devastating, and I've observed Elen and others betraying themselves in order to keep their power.67.169.11.52 (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Appointer

The above aside, that this is November seems a bit of a kicking of the can down the road. What if this had been February?

My understanding is that, while you have slowly been distancing yourself from the responsibilities some, you (JW) still retain the ability to disband arbcom at your discretion at need, and also can remove individual arbitrators at need, just as you are who appoints them. Per my original notice above, and your note that you follow things on the mail list, I would guess you have been following this.

What is your assessment? All week, I have been repeatedly mentally reminded of the situations with zscout and others, where removal happened while the situation was being considered. Is this something you have considered at all during this? - jc37 04:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Blanket use of diacritics in article titles/Stripping of majority-English-usage names

As mentioned here, I am concerned about the complete stripping out of majority-usage English naming from English Wikipedia. Surely English Wikipedia is supposed to be a trustworthy guide to how the names of Nobel Prize winners like Lech Walesa, winners at the Olympics, and the like, are spelled in reputable English sources in the real world. It is important to give the foreign-language versions of names in articles, but surely it is even more important not to completely strip the widely-used English version of foreign names out of articles. Wikipedia guidelines are quite clear on this:

• WP:DIACRITICS: "follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language"
• WP:UE: "The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage";
• WP:EN: "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals and major news sources).
• MOS:FOREIGN: "adopt the spellings most commonly used in English-language references for the article"

If all majority-usage English-language versions of foreign-language names are stripped out of English Wikipedia, then it will no longer be a trustworthy resource as to how the names of famous people are spelled in reputable English media (by the Nobel Prize Committee, on English-language autobiographies, or in the on-line records of winners and record holders at Olympic games, for example). English Wikipedia will cease to be a reliable and neutral resource on how the real world actually is, and contain only foreign-language versions of names (which the majority of English native speakers surely cannot read, write, or remember). There may be redirects from several different English misspellings (like Walensa and Wasa in the case of Walesa), but users will no longer be able to find the widely-accepted plain English spelling on Wikipedia. The premature shutting down of an RfC on this issue (Diacritics and reliable sources for names in BLPs) surely illustrates the problem, as does the discussion on the Walesa talk page.

It's not just the fact that Wikipedia guidelines are being ignored, it's the fact that some Admins are cooperating with the intimidation and discrediting—the baiting, bullying, and blocking—of users who point out that the guidelines say that both English and foreign versions should be shown, and that the article title should be the majority-usage version (whether this is with or without diacritics). If cronyism, intimidation, and ignoring of guidelines are going to trump polite discussion of problems, then maybe things are irreparably broken? What do you think? LittleBen (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know Jimmy, that this wikilink that he provided is likely the Genesis of him approaching you. The ends does not ever justify the means in any situation - this one included. Ben's current problem is the means, not the ends. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, sometimes we need to do the wrong thing in order to pursue the right result. Article titles and intros should have English names/letters in them, with transliterations further down in the lead as warranted. Have you ever seen a news reporter who when speaking about our neighbor to the south, calls it "Me-hi-co" trying to be all progressive and worldly-sounding ? I want to reach thru and throttle them. It's Mexico. M-E-X-I-C-O. Tarc (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Remind me to not meet you in person, I wouldn't enjoy having my life threatened because I take the time and effort of the minimal courtesy of trying to write and pronounce a person's or nation's name correctly. — Coren ^(talk) 20:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Without endorsing even the humorous suggestion of violence, I just wanted to point out that the correct pronunciation of Mexico, in English, is "Mexico" not "Me-hi-co". There's a distinctive English 'x' sound as in 'box'. Tarc is write to hold people who pretentiously mispronounce in English to sound "progressive and worldly" in disdain. The suggestion that it is discourteous to people who live there and pronounce it a different way when they are speaking their own language is wrong. It's not discourteous to talk about Japan rather than Nihon. It's not discourteous to talk about Munich rather than Muenchen. When the French call London "Londres" they are not being offensive. Different languages have different words and different pronunciations for different things. The suggestion that those who want to write English Wikipedia in English are discourteous is wrong. (I have sometimes seen the suggestion go even further into wrongness into claims that we are being provincial or racist or whatever. That's all wrong.) English Wikipedia is written in English. Polish Wikipedia is written in Polish. Japanese Wikipedia is written in Japanese. There's nothing wrong with that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but there is a distinction between a name that has been different in various languages for centuries (Your example of London is particularily amusing because Londres is in fact the original Norman name with "London" being the translation) and misspellings caused by the vague combination of technical limitations and lazyness that the printing press has wrought. "Sven Bartschi" isn't "Sven Bärtschi" in english; it's just misspelled (and, in the 21st century of near-universal Unicode support, it's probably mispelled by someone who couldn't be arsed to find the ä rather than because the equipment they were using couldn't represent it at all). — Coren ^(talk) 22:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Just pointing out that "London" is not a "translation" of Londres - the Roman name of the city was Londinium, and the name certainly had Celtic, and probably pre-Celtic, roots. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This is like the hundredth venue LittleBenW has brought this up in the last month or so (ok, a bit of an exaggeration, but that's the essence of it). He keeps moving from one place to another trying to convince others of his stance and so far has failed at each one. He has resorted to making nonconstructive POINTY edits (for example to Lech Wałęsa, which by the way, Britannica, that standard of English usage, has WITH the diacritics [3] (one of the many ways in which sources get misrepresented by partisans in these discussions)). There are really better things to waste one's time on, then re-arguing this issue over and over and over and... over over over again.

Also, I believe that another user was recently indef banned from Wikipedia for pursuing a similar agenda in a similar aggressive manner which ignored the general consensus of editors. The username escapes me right now, and it's not really important enough to go digging through WP:AN/I archives. Volunteer Marek  19:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You are probably referring to either User:Dolovis or User:GoodDay. Both of whom were banned from diacritics issues over the last year. Its ridiculous that people get quite so worked up over this all. -DJSasso (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yup, that'd be the one. At first when I encountered LittleBenW I thought I was dealing with a sockpuppet. I don't think that's the case, but the behavioral issues are pretty much the same. Volunteer Marek  19:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

When I first joined Wikipedia seven year ago, I thought the same. "English doesn't include squiggly marks!". Over time, I have come to realize what much of the real world is - that dropping diacritics due to either laziness or technical limitations is not "proper English". And the problem those with a zealous opposition to their use has is that the real world is rapidly adopting their use as part of common English. Most movies these days use proper diacritics in the credits. The Metro chain of newspapers usually uses them now. Even North American sports teams are starting to use them, e.g.: Sven Bärtschi. I also see Latin American names spelled on the ESPN/TSN sports tickers all the time. The reality is, modern technology has overcome these limitations, and it is becoming less and less acceptable to simply drop a diacritic and call it an "English translation". It seems that the more obvious this reality becomes, the harder its opponents fight to keep their personal POV. And that, unfortunately, is why we are seeing battleground behaviour on Wikipedia that is leading to topic bans. Resolute 20:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

*sigh* Where were you when the whole Cote d'Ivoire bollox by User:Beeblebrox happened, which has led to every single article related to that country renamed, even though its official English name is Cote d'Ivoire (with squigglies) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Aw c'mon B. I've said again and again that the problem is that ya'll had the wrong discussion to begin with and my close should not be taken as a mandate to change the names of other articles. I'm also not so sure, based on Jimmy's comments above which I agree with 100%, that he would agree that "Ivory Coast" is not the English name of the country. Just this week I heard a report on BBC news where they used "Ivory Coast" exclusively, not even mentioning the other name. (I would also note that I find it ironic that despite being so upset about this you are apparently not concerned enough to use what you believe is the proper name and apparently don't even know what to call the "squiggles" ) Beeblebrox (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You know I only called them squiggles because that's what someone called them above :-) Besides, my laptop is diacritically-challenged ... however, the repercussion of your decision is that dozens of articles are now wrong-titled ... that's kinda what I was trying to get you to recognize: the long-term effects of what seemed like a minor thing (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd guess your laptop was produced for the English-speaking market. I agree 100% with Jimbo and have tried to keep the English Wikipedia English to no avail. I married a Colombian national over 30 years ago; when we moved to the States we started pronouncing our surname with an English accent, out of deference to our English-speaking friends, and because it's just plain awkward to suddenly switch languages. Same applies here, only in writing rather than speaking, imo. Yopienso (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

One of the problems with this whole argument is all the people who think to themselves "my friends/people I know don't use diacritics, the TV I watch doesn't use them, and these all speak English, hence using the squiggles is NOT English, dammit!". But of course that's the wrong standard. Academic sources and other reference works, which are the relevant standard. And these do use the "squiggles". What is happening is that you got a bunch of people who *think* they know English usage in sources comparable to Wikipedia (nay, more serious ones even), but they don't. Like I pointed out above, if omitting diacritics is "proper English" (wth that is), then why does BRITAINnica use'em? This, btw, has noting to do with intellectual pretension but with simple accuracy and precision. Which, um, is what an encyclopedia is supposed to embody. Volunteer Marek  00:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably the issue is simpler than that. The English alphabet seems diacritics free. So, if you are using the Spanish (ennnyaa) with the tilde on top of the n, you are using a Spanish letter, in a piece written in English. Now, sure you can use the foreign letter and foreign spelling but the convention use to be that foreign words and latin words were italicized, and regardless you have to admit you are using a foreign spelling, because that letter does not exist in the English alphabet. The issue hardly seems worthy of all the fuss, but with someone like Lech Walesa, whose name has been written in the English alphabet (anglicized) for more than 40 30 years in RS, it is not surprising that you have people coming to that article asking about it; one way to deal with that is a parenthetical (or Lech Walesa). Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC) (strike to correct 40 to 30, when the error was pointed out (substantive point remains unchanged) - Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC) )

one way to deal with that is a parenthetical (or Lech Walesa) - but that's essentially insulting the reader's intelligence, in that it assumes that a reader is too stupid figure out that the person named Lech Wałęsa is the same as the guy named Lech Walesa they might have encountered somewhere before. The Britannica link is right up there, and as far as I am aware that's a English language, reliable and comparable source. So by that standard, Lech Wałęsa, IS English.

Oh, and by the way, I seriously doubt that "Lech Wałęsa" "has been written in the English alphabet (anglicized) for more than 40 years in RS" as "Lech Walesa". While that's not quite impossible, the chances of it being true are slim. Hence, you're making stuff up. Ah, Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek  01:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Oh, I meant to write 30. He was written about in all the best English sources 30 years ago. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

{edit conflict} No, he wasn't making it up; he was winging it from memory and missed it by a few years. Walesa was very much in the news in 1976, and while I don't have the proof, we can be sure his name was then squiggle-free. Time named him Person of the Year in 1981; no squiggles. Please note En. Brit. doesn't do the Vietnamese diacriticals. So, which example do we follow? Yopienso (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Correct. Moreover, Britannica does not claim to add letters to the English alphabet. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

See also, the "Biography of Lech Walesa" anglicized by the Nobel Prize committee:[4] Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

<--- *Sigh*. No, Wałęsa was NOT "very much in the news in 1976". I'm guessing you guys are young and don't know what you're talking about and are putting up the best front you can (if not, then that's actually worse). I actually do remember when he first came to prominence (and have had the pleasure of meeting the guy - though I'm not much of a fan, as it happens). Also, we're not in 1981 when Time magazine was probably technologically incapable of including diacritics in its print version. It's 2012, 21st century, all that, and I'm sure there is some retro corner of the internet where these kinds of sentiments can be accommodated. But Wikipedia purports to be a modern encyclopedia and so spelling the guy's name right is sort of... required, if Wikipedia wants to live up to that promise.

I don't know about the inclusion of Vietnamese diacritics. Maybe it makes sense, maybe it doesn't, it depends on the sources. I'm not an absolutist when it comes to this issue, unlike most of the anti-diacritic fanatics that have found their home here. So maybe it should be "Viet Minh" rather than "Việt Minh". I don't know, it's not my area of expertise. I am puzzled by your comment on the talk page of that article however [5] which basically justifies your opposition to diacritics there by the fact that... they annoy YOU. Honestly, the fact that presence of "squiggles" annoys a user account named Yopienso on Wikipedia is not quite sufficient reason to dumb it down. When I see the "Việt Minh" written out I think to myself "Hmm, that's interesting. What do these marks mean, what is the actual pronunciation of the term, and what does it imply about the subject?" It makes me more interested in the subject. As a good encyclopedia article should. Volunteer Marek  02:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. (I have also met the man). But anglicization of Polish into English is nothing new. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC). However your insistence that anglicization is "wrong" is but another bias. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, ok, sure, right back at ya, "your argument is nothing new", "your insistence is "wrong", "I'm right!", "I want I want I want!!!" "Me me me and my view my view my view!!!". We can claim stuff all day long.

An assertion is not an argument. I think I've showed pretty conclusively above that the diacritic version IS used by academic and comparable encyclopedic sources. You can type the letters: w. r. o. n. g. in all you want. It doesn't make it so. Volunteer Marek  03:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

What? Contrary sources have been produced. And you've produced no sources that say anglicization of words is "wrong." Anglicization happens, it's a real world phenomena. Whether any editor thinks it's wrong or not is irrelevant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I do tend to get really annoyed when people alter their original comments or insert new comments into old threads in a way to make it seem like they "knew it all along", rather than responding to the criticisms raised. It's sort of dishonest. Anyways...  Volunteer Marek  02:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

What? Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Britannica is surely the only "reliable" source to use diacritics for Walesa's name in English? Surely it would cost them too much money to switch diacritics-only articles to show both diacritics and majority English usage? Surely Britannica and all other reliable sources don't use diacritics for Vietnamese, so "because Britannica does it" cannot be given as a reason for warring in favor of moving all Vietnamese article titles to diacritics. LittleBen (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Not quite as underhanded as alleging that those who Anglicize foreign words/names is some act of insult or slur. "Wałęsa" does not exist in the English language. Period. Seriously, Americans use diacritics for one of two reasons, 1) World of Warcrafters who like unique names and 2) Mötley Crüe fans.

And @Coren way up above re "having my life threatened", please don't be stupid. You and everyone else know what I said was a figure of speech, not a literal wish/desire to cause bodily harm. That kind of drama-queenery pretty much deligitimizes whatever point you were trying to make in the first,place. Smarten up. Tarc (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I've responded to hyperbole with hyperbole, nothing more. — Coren ^(talk) 03:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

No Coren, you replied to an opinion with a mealy-mouthed lie. Take my name out of your mouth in the future if you lack the common decency of an honest person. Tarc (talk) 05:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

"Wałęsa" does not exist in the English language. Period. Seriously, Americans use diacritics for one of two reasons, 1) World of Warcrafters who like unique names and 2) Mötley Crüe fans. - Oy! Come on Tarc! In addition to all the World of Warcraft players who, for obviously obvious reason, name their panda monks "Lech Wałęsa" (what. the. fuck.???) and that Motley Crew drummer who exploded whose name was Lech Wałęsa (wtf^2), you forgot that third reason - it's freaking used by Britannica which is neither WoW nor Motley Crue. And other sources. Again, you're just making shit up and projecting your own conception of reality - which is more or less the "my friends don't use diacritics so it's not English dammit and I'm a lazy bum, so it's like "Walesa", dude!". Give it a break. "Wałęsa" very much does exist in the English language. And it certainly should be used in what claims to be a reliable reference work. Period. Seriously. Get over it. Mannnnnn. Volunteer Marek  03:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Surely the same silly argument (that majority usage plain-English rendering is insulting) applies to Chinese, Japanese, and Korean? So why don't people refuse Nobel Prizes and Olympic medals, and refuse to permit English-language autobiographies, if they think that being famous in English-speaking countries is "an insult"? Look at the section Arguments against adopting the English usage of reputable sources in English Wikipedia in the RfC (about "Diacritics and reliable sources for names in BLPs") for more silly arguments. LittleBen (talk) 03:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be useful to see direct cites for the claim that diacritics letters are used in English words. Or is that claim being made up? Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Jesus Fucking Christ, how many times have I linked to the Britannica article on Lech Wałęsa [6] already????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? I'm sorry but you're either being fundamentally dishonest, you're incapable of reading the English language, or you're suffering from a severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Or all three. And this basically encapsulates the whole diacritics debate where there's no other word to describe partisans like you except with words like "zealot" , "fanatic", "POV pusher" and... "internet looser". This is the point where WP:AGF goes out the window (as it should, per policy). Bang. Bang head against the wall. Like I said, I'm not absolutist in regard to this debate. There are cases where diacritics make sense, and there are ones where they don't. It depends. On sources. Like Britannica. Why am I wasting my time with bullheaded people who have taken up this silly misguided cause as their banner and raison d'etra (wait, should that have an accent mark)?. Volunteer Marek  03:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

No. That article does not directly discuss the use of diacritics in the English language, at all. Is there a misunderstanding about what it means to directly discuss something in a reliable source article? Alanscottwalker (talk) 04:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

WP has no policy of blindly following the Encyclopedia Britannica's every lead.

And yes, I should have looked up when "Solidarity" was daily in the news. I was thinking it was when I was living in a certain place in 1976, but now that I've looked it up, it was about the time I got married. Please forgive my poor old memory. Yopienso (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Guys, keep in mind that Marek is one of the deeper Wikipediocracy Kool-Aid drinkers, and could never bring himself to actually admit you're right, since that'd earn displeasure from certain luminaries over there. The Wikipedia is not beholden to Britannica or feel-good political correctness. If you're writing English, you ain't using squiggles. Simple as that. Tarc (talk) 05:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

neutrality of Breast cancer awareness

I'd like to call attention to the article Breast cancer awareness. I'm concerned that there are major neutrality problems with this article, specifically that it advances a viewpoint that the most well-known elements of the Breast Cancer Awareness movement (such as the Susan G. Komen foundation) promote a kind of falsely-cheerful type of activism that hurts patients. This is a point of view that has been advanced by some serious people (Barbara Ehrenreich for instance) but in this article it is given undue weight and claims made by these detractors are treated as fact. Given that this movement enjoys widespread popular support, the lack of balance is quite striking. The following are examples of problems that I see:

• The article makes sweeping generalizations and states them as facts, rather than as opinions. For instance: "Mainstream pink ribbon culture is also trivializing, silencing, and infantilizing (Sulik 2010, page 98)." Sulik may conclude that it is, but I doubt so many people would contribute money and time to these organizations if they agreed.
• The article gives massive weight to critics of this movement and comparably little weight to proponents. The section on the social role of the breast cancer movement, which discusses the negative effects that the movement has on survivors is 12 paragraphs long, and placed above the section on the achievements of the movement, which is seven paragraphs long. Following this is a five-paragraph section titled "Risks of too much awareness" and then a five-paragraph critical section titled "Independence of breast cancer organizations" and then a four-paragraph section that starts by accusing major foundations of ignoring possible environmental causes of breast cancer. Following this is a three-paragraph section called "Dissent through art"
• When summing up organizations or elements of the breast cancer awareness movement, the article takes a dismissive tone. For instance, the last paragraph of the section "Events" says this:

"Mere symbolism itself does not prevent cancer, improve treatments, or save lives. However, it is an effective form of promoting the pink ribbon culture: fear of breast cancer, the hope for a scientific breakthrough, and the goodness of the people who support the cause. These supporters may feel socially compelled to participate, in a type of "obligatory voluntarism" that critics say is "exploitative"

This portrays participants in awareness events as both self-satisfied and exploited and engaged in meaningless work. It also takes a much harsher tack than the cited source: it ignores benefits of these events that the cited source points out just one paragraph earlier - that they enable breast cancer patients to meet others in the same predicament and to feel comfortable receiving advice and support. It also changes the source's tone by suggesting that this movement IS exploitative when the source says it "can be".

• The article takes constructs from social science research and presents them as facts. For instance: "Breast cancer culture values and honors suffering, selecting its she-roes by a "misery quotient" (Sulik 2010, page 319)". Is this "misery quotient" a term universally excepted in social science research, or is it something that Sulik came up with?
• The article talk page includes an FAQ titled "Why is this article so critical" that suggests to editors that changes are unwelcome.

I think this article would benefit strongly from a fresh perspective and I encourage you to take a look. GabrielF (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It certainly can use extensive discussion from editors on the article's talkpage - which those exact same issues have already been subject to. WP:CONSENSUS can change. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)