User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

When were admin handed a magic wand?

Brown Haired Girl just did something I do not recognize an admin having the right to do. I would like to hear about whether this can actually be done?

Impossed moratorium with no discussion? Just...I did it. Great...and I don't recognize it.--Maleko Mela (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no policy that I'm aware of that allows an admin to unilaterally impose a one year moratorium on discussion of an important issue. Such a policy would be absurd on the face of it. At the same time, it seems pretty clear that a one year break from discussing this perennial topic is not a bad idea. The right way to accomplish it is not through some fictional admin powers, but through appropriate community RfC. I think that even if the parties to the discussion can't come to an agreement about the title after repeated efforts, they may very well support imposing a moratorium on discussion for some defined period of time, as well as the implementation of a process for assessing the various alternatives and coming to some thoughtful and reasonable compromise solution that can gain consensus.

A moratorium on discussion is not a solution to the problem, without consensus on that moratorium, and without some efforts to build consensus around a process with a path to peace in the future.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

This is already under discussion at WP:AN#Move_request_moratorium_at_Genesis_creation_narrative, where I noted the moratorium promptly after it was imposed. Seems to be supported so far, but it's up to other admins to decide whether or not to enforce it. When the same questoion is raised repeatedly with the same outcome, WP:TE and WP:DE start to look relevant.

I have suggested there that editors consider a more structured process for examining the question next time round. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I urge you to cancel the moratorium. I think people are supporting because, in this specific case, a one year moratorium sounds relaxing and good. But just because something is good, doesn't mean that it should be imposed by fiat, particularly not by a single admin, and particularly not when it may set a particularly bad precedent for future custom.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo, I have no stake in the outcome of this. It is already being discussed at WP:AN#Move_request_moratorium_at_Genesis_creation_narrative, and so far there appears to be a consensus there to support the moratorium. That may change, or maybe not. Maybe someone will take it to move review. But I will let the moratorium stand, and be a focus for a discussion the community needs to have. This is far from the first RM moratorium, and the discussion may trigger a wider consensus on what to do with intractable disputes such as this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move discussions are supposed to look for thoughtful and reasonable compromise solutions. What often happens is a finding of "no consensus" which results in the article staying where it was before the discussion began. The "losing" side has no incentive to agree to a moratorium as you suggest. So what's probably going to happen is a seven day move discussion followed by a thirty day RfC with the same editors making the same arguments. A likely scenario is a finding of "no consensus" again and the re-opening of yet another move discussion. I think BrownHairedGirl presented a nice lightweight solution. An uninvolved admin uses their judgment and then presents it to the outside community for comment. Kind of like Deletion Review. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

A nice lightweight solution is unhelpful and predisposes to further requests. Countering this with a fiat-like moratorium runs counter to the spirit of collaborative editing. I commented on a more constructive way forward over there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The time sink that some of these tendentious and repetitive move request hobbyhorses create (see also Sarah Jane Brown and Hillary Rodham Clinton) is the greater harm to the project than an admin using her common sense to encourage people to go do something else for a while. Page protection and blocks/bans are also counter to the spirit of collaborative editing, but sometimes such actions are required for the greater good of the project. That being said, things like 'move moratoriums' should probably be discussed then implemented rather than the other away around. Resolute 04:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

There is real harm in allowing anyone a special right not grnated to even Jimbo himself. We discuss these things and admin have no special rights granted by anyone anywhere at anytime to impose their own will or decisions on the community and there is a policy for that called: Wikipedia:Consensus per WP:CONEXCEPT which states clearly:

Decisions not subject to consensus of editors

Certain policies and decisions made by the Wikimedia Foundation ("WMF"), its officers, and the Arbitration Committee of Wikipedia are outside the purview of editor consensus.

• The WMF has legal control over, and liability for, Wikipedia. Decisions, rulings, and acts of the WMF Board and its duly appointed designees take precedence over, and preempt, consensus. A consensus among editors that any such decision, ruling, or act violates Wikimedia Foundation policies may be communicated to the WMF in writing.
• Office actions are not permitted to be reversed by editors except by prior explicit office permission.
• The English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee may issue binding decisions, within its scope and responsibilities, that override consensus. The committee has a noticeboard, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment, for requests that such decisions be amended, and may amend such decisions at any time.
• Some matters that may seem subject to the consensus of the community at the English-language Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) are, in fact, in a separate domain. In particular, the community of MediaWiki software developers, including both paid Wikimedia Foundation staff and other volunteers, and the activities of Wikimedia Commons, are largely separate entities, as are the many non-English Wikipedias. These independent, co-equal communities operate however they deem necessary or appropriate, such as adding, removing, or changing software features, or accepting or rejecting images, even if their actions are not endorsed by editors here. This does not constitute an exhaustive list as much as a reminder that the decisions taken under this project apply only to the workings of the self-governing community of English Wikipedia.

--Maleko Mela (talk) 04:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Unusual problems sometimes require unusual solutions. BHG has tried to close a never-ending cycle of acrimony, and has correctly taken it to WP:AN#Move request moratorium at Genesis creation narrative for discussion. That is a valid place for any concerns to be raised and third-parties should support such solutions in order to protect the encyclopedia—perpetual bickering is death for an online community. John resolved another never-ending battle regarding whether a certain game should be called "football" or "soccer" using a similar technique (see here). Johnuniq (talk) 05:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. BHG has recognised the fact that the likelihood of achieving consensus for this move is slightly less than a snowball's chance in hell, so devoting more time and resources to pulling the warring parties apart is a waste of everybody's time. We could, I guess, just topic ban the ones who refuse to accept their failure to gain consensus for a move, that would work too. Guy (Help!) 08:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You know...this really isn't about BHG, although I really don't agree with what the admin did. This is really about whether editors must follow our policies and guidelines or if they can "go rogue" (and no that is not a comparison to Sarah Palin). Are we or are we not a community of policies and guidelines and then...on the flip of that, does this constitute Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Not sure anyone has brought that up yet. Is this case where ignoring the rule was needed to improve the project. I would, of course, argue no, it wasn't as a simple community discussion is all that was needed. Is it possible the admin was simply frustrated with the constant move requests, I wont even try to speak for the admin or second guess her. What is clear is, this isn't the norm nor is it a precedence that is good. I assume good faith and BHG has stated that the discussion she started was to gain a consensus. While it didn't look to me as that was the case from just the prose that was written, I am satisfied it was their intent. I am still very concerned that the way the closing was written, it clearly shows that the admin did indeed impose this on their own as they also clearly admit. But that is also because they seem to have been allowed to do this in the past Other admin have done this in the past with no one really noticing and so, I can see why they would think they could simply do it again as well. That is the real issue, my real concern is not sanctioning anyone. I am concerned that this is being supported in a casual manner for admin to do again, and I simply can't support that and feel this needs a much more detailed discussion. Perhaps at the village pump after the centralized discussion has closed at AN, we can begin discussing whether we should or should not allow this for all admin as part of their bag of tools.--Maleko Mela (talk) 09:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Moving discussions to a special page can work well. This is what was done to the debate about "Not Truth" on the verifiability page. This made the discussions focussed and constructive. Count Iblis (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• I think a more constructive result would be to say something like, "It is clear that these move discussions have worn out the community's patience. While anybody is free to start a discussion at any time, there is an increasing chance that such discussions will be speedily closed as redundant, and that editors starting them may be subject to warnings or even sanctions for disruptive editing." At some point starting the same discussion for the nth time for no good reason is problematic. Jehochman ^Talk 18:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • @Jehochman: That's a tempting option, but I fear that it is just kicking the can down the road to a heated dispute when someone does speedy close a move discussion. It seems to me to better to find some way to set a clear timeframe, so that everyone knows where they stand.
    Amongst those who objected to the moratorium, the main concern has been that it is unilateral. I understand that, but since this is a long way from being the first such moratorium, I think we need some broader discussion on how to handle these situations. There are several possibilities, of which the simplest is to ban admin-imposed moratoria, but I the WP:AN discussion doesn't seem to suggest that this would meet consensus. Another option is to treat them the way we treat many other admin actions, which is to review them if they are controversial; that's more or less what happened this time. Yet another possibility is that there is some mechanism for proposing a moratorium. At the moment, the only way would be through an RFC, which opens up a 30-day wrangle. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Admins are empowered to evaluate, summarize and enforce the consensus of the community. If there is a discussion where a substantial number of editors support a one year moratorium, then an admin can implement that decision. If you think such a thing would be helpful, please propose it for discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 13:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

You know, thinking back, I believe the first example of a one year moratorium on discussion I can recall on Wikipedia was when Jimbo finally cut off the idiocy over Brian Peppers. It's not the same thing really, of course, because in that case those on one side were merely gadflies whereas here there are committed Wikipedians on both sides. Guy (Help!) 20:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The events surrounding the Brian Peppers incident were worse than you remember. As the Signpost article shows, there was a level of wheel warring involved as various administrators salted and/or unprotected the article. The incident does however provide a good example of a one year moratorium allowing enough of a cooling down period that a consensus could finally develop. --Allen3 ^talk 20:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Clearer guidelines might well be useful. I've encountered one example of a long-standing article-rescuer using that moratorium[1] in arguing that a second AfD (of Jews and Communism) is vexatious[2] and disruptive[3]. NebY (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Can I chime in here? I think that banning discussion is ridiculous, and should never be done regardless of the situation. I don't particularly want to propose a move, but I think moratoriums should be banned as disrupting possible discussion. 75* 19:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

In this case I don't think Brown Haired Girl was imposing an arbitrary restriction, but rather voicing the community's consensus. I have seen other administrators suggest/impose a similar moratorium before a contentious discussion is reopened, and the community often requests one. In some of these perennial move requests there is a STRONG feeling on the part of the discussants that once a discussion is closed, there should be no further discussions for a period of time such as 6 months or one year - with an exception if new information comes to light or novel arguments (not already argued ad nauseam) are presented. Such moratoria, whether or not suggested by an admin/closer, are often enforced informally, by a chorus of "not again!" and a speedy close of the too-soon discussion. The feeling is that we all have better things to do than to rehash a repetitious argument that was only recently closed. --MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion on the URAA

Following on from the vote over at commons to ignore the URAA and the restoration of copyright material following Commons:Deletion requests/Files on User:LGA/Files restored by Ezarate and the subsequent non-action by the administrators after the notification here of the copyright status of these files. I would be interested to know your opinion, as a member of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, as to commons hosting images whose copyright was restored by the URAA. LGA _talk^edits 23:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The WMF has already provided an uncharacteristically clear opinion on this matter and it was foundational to the consensus achieved. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to this, however it clearly states that that the WMF "can't provide legal advice to community members", it also has a link to a statement which, among other things, says "Commons community should still examine media on a case-by-case basis" the above DR was an attempt to do that, and not a single editor (either at the DR or since) has questioned the fact that these images had copyright restored by the URAA and the admin who restored them has refused point blank to comment on the copyright status. Hence why I am asking Jimbo for his opinion. LGA _talk^edits 03:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

To some it would look like you are forum shopping. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking at LGA's account (a fresh start), I see it's entirely devoted to tagging for deletion. Not here and really a fresh start? I mean there's an ongoing issue about URAA, we all know that, but I do look askance at this attempt to elevate the issue here. One would have hoped at the least for a more disinterested party to be raising. Forum shopping does seem a fair comment to me. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Not Forum shopping, as far as I can tell, Jimbo has never commented on this publicly, I am asking him what he thinks. LGA _talk^edits 23:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Well I should think like everyone else else he thinks URAA is a pain in our evolutionary process apparatus for eliminating waste. But you're wanting to put him on the spot aren't you? I'm not sure he needs to respond. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Well I agree that it is a pain, but I still think Jimbo should let us know his opinion on how we deal with it. LGA _talk^edits 21:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

If you are asking me in my capacity as a board member of the Wikimedia Foundation, I can only answer on behalf of the foundation by pointing to the statements linked above. If you are asking for my personal opinion, I'm afraid I do not have sufficient information to properly form a full opinion about these specific images and this specific case. I can say a few words about the general principles that I think we in the community should follow in making borderline decisions. First, everyone should be careful to follow the law in their own country. It is unwise to bring legal risk upon yourself. Second, we should recognize that differences in jurisdiction will make for many complex and overlapping decisions about copyright and other legal matters. There is no perfect answer. Third, when the Foundation (being based in the US) sees a need to take action based on real legal reasoning about potential risks to the project as a whole, we in the community should kindly and thoughtfully defer to that judgment. Fourth, we should not position ourselves as "copyright maximalists" but should recognize that there are valuable limits to copyright that are important for free culture. Among these limits is the expiration of copyright and the public domain. A principled stance in favor of protecting the public domain is something I personally think valuable.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with the statement "A principled stance in favor of protecting the public domain is something I personally think valuable" however would not a more reasoned approach, rather than saying we are going to ignore the URAA (as commons have appeared to say here), be to devote effort into lobbying the US Congress to adopt the Rule of the shorter term into US copyright law which would have a far bigger contribution to the store of public domain information than the URAA took away ? LGA _talk^edits 06:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, you'd think that, but... this doesn't take into account the lunatic way in which copyright law actually develops. The reality is that some big company stakes out a position -- Google claims it has the right to use thumbnail photos in an image search, Napster claims it can allow people to share songs online, YouTube claims it can allow people to share videos online, Aereo claims you can rent out an antenna from them and download it from another city. Then everybody goes to court, some go bankrupt, some go to jail, some become billionaires. Nobody can predict which will happen to who ahead of time; it's hard to understand the differences even after the fact. And then it becomes the incontrovertible status quo that no one will ever change. So maybe WMF can step up to this high-stakes table in defense of Americans' right to display images that may be freely served to U.S. consumers from computers elsewhere in the world. I just hope the stakes aren't too high to afford. Wnt (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Brian Josephson (Nobel Prize winner in 1972) plans to contact the media about his block

See User talk:Brian Josephson#May 2014. The discussion that led to his block for legal threats is at WP:ANI#Possible legal threat at WP:BLPN. As he is Nobel Prize winner, albeit a long time ago and he has been widely criticized for unorthodox statements since then, it seems pretty likely that this will be reported in the media today. Dougweller (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

He has every right to do so, and he has my full support as a fellow Wikipedian. -A1candidate (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

He has every right to do so, but he doesn't have my support. "I'm not threatening legal action, just warning the person concerned that he is putting himself at [legal] risk" is borderline though. That could be seen as a straightforward statement of concern, or it could be seen as unwarranted introduction of legal stuff into the conversation. He can appeal his block and might win through. Going to the press this early is not the Wikipedia way, and I hope that A1candidate is not advocating a dispute resolution paradigm of "Have a short discussion, call the Times if you lose" as a general thing. Herostratus (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I should have added a link to WP:BLPN#Russell Targ. Dougweller (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Meh. It's a silly block. Josephson does advocate for the kind of pseudoscience and other nonsense that have, sadly, undermined his reputation of late, but he does so in a civil way and does not overwhelm discussion like some pseudoscience advocates do. I tend to think he keeps us honest, though I often find his input tiresome. This is not legal threats, it's mere rhetorical exuberance.

Targ, on the other hand, is a bit of a problem. There is no way we can give him an article he'd like without completely abandoning WP:NPOV. The consensus on his body of work is... unflattering. Men who stare at goats was not a documentary, it was a not always subtle piss-take. Guy (Help!) 18:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

We've discussed related issues recently here and at ArbCom. I think we have a continuing problem where people push rationality too hard, because no matter what they may think, a rationalist point of view isn't a neutral point of view. They know enough not to try to go into an article about religion and take out all the "woo" (as they put it), but when it comes to a biography like Rupert Sheldrake the emphasis seems to be more to condemn the person than to explain his beliefs in a detailed and sympathetic way. I'm not saying we shouldn't say something is pseudoscience when the sources say it is, but it too readily gets pushed toward removing information and references because you think it's wrong, or denigrating someone in a special section of his BLP or creating a special category of pseudoscientists. That's not to say that claims of defamation shouldn't be clarified away from legal notification, but it'd be better to be more confident in our NPOV to start with. Wnt (talk) 05:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a good definition of what constitutes pseudoscience in this Forbes article:

• The use of psychobabble – words that sound scientific and professional but are used incorrectly, or in a misleading manner.
• A substantial reliance on anecdotal evidence.
• Extraordinary claims in the absence of extraordinary evidence.
• Claims which cannot be proven false.
• Claims that counter established scientific fact.
• Absence of adequate peer review.
• Claims that are repeated despite being refuted.

Remote viewing undoubtedly meets some of these criteria at the current time. That said, I don't think that Brian Josephson's comments constituted a direct legal threat. They should have been worded better and withdrawn when asked to do so. There is considerable worry in the UK that legal action may result from describing certain areas as pseudoscience, as happened with BCA v. Singh.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The good news is that the British enacted libel reform, in large part prodded by that case. We don't generally need to start working through criteria like those above (it'd be called 'original synthesis' here) but there are generally external sources when we say that a field of study, experiment, or invention is pseudoscience. That said, Wikipedia's typical sensibilities on BLPs and a sense of neutral point of view should make us wary of calling people "pseudoscientist" without good, direct sourcing of the term. Wnt (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

no matter what they may think, a rationalist point of view isn't a neutral point of view. - That's BS. There is nothing more neutral, by definition, than logic and facts. Logic and facts are the definition of unbiased. Bias is what skews logic and facts. --cyclopia^speak! 14:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Writing something like "Scientist A is a lying cheating sonofagun" is undoubtedly potential libel. Routine scientific debates should never end up in the courts simply because one of the parties has the time, money and inclination to do so. This was the big lesson of BCA v. Singh.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

(ec)The semantics is difficult here. My point is, facts may not have a rational explanation that you or I know of. Wikipedia should show neutrality toward the facts by including a wide range of sources and opinions, even when those opinions support irrational ideas.

P.S. That Forbes article provides a beautiful (and ugly) case of what I would call history repeating itself. My intent here is not to give this sort of worker room to hawk without naysaying; only to ensure that people feel free to explore the details of any idea. You can't refute something until you understand it. Wnt (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not about facts that may nor may not have an explanation. Remote viewing is completely explicable, assessment of the evidence shows that any improvement over chance was down to cues given by the investigators. As far as I am aware, every single rigorous investigation of claims by paranormalists, be they psychics or spoon benders, has resulted in a resoundingly negative result. As soon as you make it impossible for a chance result to be accepted as confirmation, the effect vanishes. And if it doesn't, well, congratulations: you're a millionaire.

This discussion has been round many times. In general, unless there is a really strong reason to conclude otherwise, in any matter that is properly in the realm of scientific investigation, the scientific consensus counts as the neutral point of view as far as our policies are concerned, because by definition the scientific consensus incorporates all significant valid facts and arguments. And the scientific consensus tends to be couched in conservative terms. For example, a scientific overview of homeopathy does not say "homeopathy is bullshit", it says, in effect, that there is no reason to believe it should work, no plausible mechanism by which it can work, and no good evidence it does work (beyond nonspecific effects loosely termed placebo effects). It might also say that homeopathy is based on refuted concepts and that no experiment on homeopathy has ever convincingly refuted the null hypothesis.

A homeopathist will say "homeopathy works! look at all these studies", conveniently ignoring the contrary evidence, the refutation of core doctrines and the absence of credible mechanism. A skeptical activist will say that homeopathy is bullshit and its practitioners frauds. Neither of these is NPOV, the scientific analysis is NPOV becuase it makes clear that while there is virtually no chance that homeopathy is valid, you can't prove a negative. We can be sure enough that it's not worth further investigation, and there's no way the public purse should reimburse it, but science has no position on whether people should be allowed to buy or sell it, only on the expected effect (which is: nothing). Guy (Help!) 19:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, the devil is always in the details -- for example, Zicam nasal spray was an example of "homeopathy" that was both effective and harmful. (I've seen a few homeopathic formulations of the low-dilution variety are out there, mostly as FDA warnings after the fact) So it wouldn't be good to have an article structured to have one scientific source after another saying that homeopathy is pseudoscience, fraud, etc., but leave out the precise theory and practice of homeopathy (including what 'inactive' ingredients are allowed). The same is even more true for the BLPs - just because Rupert Sheldrake has expressed some ill-defined and unsupported alternatives to morphogens doesn't mean that when you explore some of his essays he doesn't make some good points about the assumptions we make in science. Wnt (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

True, though to be fair Zicam was only driving a truck through the truck-sized hole the homeopathy regulations left in the Federal Food and Drug Act (in the same way that OxyElite Pro did with DSHEA). As for Sheldrake, I read his book "The Science Delusion", I wish I hadn't wasted my money. If he does make valid points it's largely by accident, there are many better critiques of the process of science written by people who are not rather obviously engaged in special pleading. The problem with Sheldrake (and Josephson and Targ and Chopra and all the others that keep popping up) in recent times) is that their ideas are rejected by the scientific community for excellent reasons. A truism often attributed to Bob Park: It is not enough to wear the mantle of Galileo: that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

News coverage

For informational purposes only. Discussions of purported claims being made require knowledge of the actual claims.. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Wired.it

[ Translation to english via google translate [4] --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC) ]

Mass substitution of Dutch articles on medicine

I'm sorry, I'm usually not someone to 'come running to Jimbo'. I also admit that I'm not very familiar with all international Wikipedia/Wikimedia structures, I've just been writing articles on the Dutch Wikipedia for the last eight years. But I have the feeling that writing here can get some international attention for my question, and I believe that can be a good thing.

Recently, we've been notified about a project that aims to select Good Articles on medical subjects from the English Wikipedia, have them translated into Dutch by a group of volunteers, and then the existing articles on Dutch Wikipedia are replaced by the translated version. And I mean the word 'replaced' quite literally. The people from this project go to the existing Dutch article, click 'Edit', select everything that is there, hit 'Del' and replace everything with the translated English article. An example of this happening can be found here. I understand that there are 15 more articles being translated at the moment for this project, and who knows how many more will follow?

Some people (even one or two from the Dutch Wikipedia) defend this with 'but the English people are better'. And indeed, I'll readily admit that some of the English articles are more extensive and better sourced. I welcome efforts to improve some of the Dutch articles in this sense, but have serious doubts if simply mass replacing Dutch articles with translation of English ones is a good way to go about this.

My main concerns are this:

• Wikipedia is a collaboration project. Even if the English article is 'better' by some standard, people have put time and effort in writing and improving the Dutch articles. Their contributions should at least be considered, and an effort should be made to see if they can be integrated in newer versions of the article. Ideally, this should be discussed and a consensus should be sought. Their work should not be simply replaced by something else.
• I am especially sensitive about throwing information away. Already, some pieces of information that were present on the earlier Dutch articles are absent on the newer, translated versions. Standards from the English Wikipedia about sourcing and relevance should not be ruthlessly applied by outsiders to the Dutch Wikipedia to throw information away; it is the Dutch Wikipedia community who should discuss about that.
• Most importantly: I think there is a reason why we have Wikipedias in different languages. I mean, we could just have had one central Wikipedia, write good articles on that and then translate to all languages. But if we really want to write a compendium of the world's knowledge, people who don't speak English might have something to contribute to that. Their contributions shouldn't be simply thrown away. The way people think about medicine is highly culturally determined. For example, people in the Netherlands use much less medicine than in other countries, because we and our doctors have a different cultural model of thinking about medicine. And now this project just wants to throw the ideas of non-English speaking countries away, and put uniform articles about medicine on non-English Wikipedias? What if someone has something interesting to say about dengue on the Wikipedia in Quechua, but her contributions don't exactly meet the standards of the English Wikipedia? The way I see it, this has a substantial risk of imposing a western/North American view upon the rest of the world, even more than is already happening now.

Once again, I recognize that not all Dutch articles about medicinal subjects are on the same standard as some on the English Wikipedia, and I welcome efforts from English contributors to help to improve that. But I don't think that simply mass replacing Dutch articles by translations from the English Wikipedia is the way to go about that. Thank you for your attention. LeRoc (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeRoc (talk • contribs)

Please link to one or more discussions (in English or Dutch or both) on the Dutch Wikipedia, in which editors reached a decision to undertake this project, and please translate the most important parts of Dutch text into English and post them here.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The way I understand it, the place where editors reached a decision to undertake this project was not on the Dutch, but on the English Wikipedia. The project page seems to be here. The idea seems to be to mass replace articles on medical subjects on a large number of Wikipedias with translations of English articles. I don't think there has been a discussion on the Dutch Wikipedia where we agreed to participate in this (but I may be wrong). The current discussion on the Dutch Wikipedia about this is taking place here. Most of it is in English, you should be able to follow it. LeRoc (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi LeRoc, it looks like from the post that you linked to that the editors involved are in fact looking for people to assist in integrating the newly translated article into the Dutch language. Isn't that in fact what you are saying that you want to happen, too. So maybe there is an approach that can be found to satisfy your concerns? Getting the well referenced content from the translated article blended with the material that is relevant specifically to the most common readers of the Dutch language Wikipedia. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

That seems very rude. Why can they not put them int he Draft space and invite consensus of editors of the existing article to make the edit? If the translated text is genuinely better then it will be done rapidly, otherwise there might be a merger resulting in an article that is better still (and maybe then the translation team will port it back). Guy (Help!) 18:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. It depends on what you mean by 'integrating'. I have much doubts if asking someone to become an 'integrator' will resolve this. Integrating a translation of an English article with a Dutch article can't be done in a couple of hours. For every article a discussion needs to be held, and that can easily take weeks. I agree with JzG's suggestion to put the translated article in draft space and then discuss about it. But not how it is done now. I also think that before undertaking such a broad project on a wide range of Wikipedias, there should be a wider discussion and consensus about it first. I'm not sure if this has happened here. LeRoc (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi LeRoc, I appreciate your perspective about wanting to respect the contributions of the previous editors to the article, and taking the necessary time to blend the material. Right now, the process is not ideal. But, I hope we can work together to figure out a way to do this well instead of not doing it at all. I know that User:CFCF is trying to get an IEG in order to allocate more time to recruiting people to the Medical translation project. See meta:Grants:IEG/Medicine Translation Project Community Organizing. I sincerely think that the intention is not to be over bearing (but can understand if it comes across that way to you), but to be collaborative. But right now we don't have good prior practices for doing this type of activity. Let's try to figure this out instead of just halting it. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

First I want to make clear that I'm not a spokesperson for the Dutch Wikipedia, I'm just a simple contributor on that Wikipedia without any medical knowledge. I also think that Jimbo's talk page wouldn't be the right place to decide about such a thing. But my suggestion would be to check first on all Wikipedias for which this project is considered if the project was introduced there in a proper way. To check if there has been a discussion about the project on that Wikipedia, if a consensus was reached on that Wikipedia to participate in it, and about how to go about 'integration' on that Wikipedia. If this discussion hasn't been held on all Wikipedias that are considered in this project, I would urge the people from this project to have it. I think a consensus about these points on a Wikipedia is an important requisite for this project to go ahead on that Wikipedia. LeRoc (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Eeep! Nesting issue. I want to make it clear, I am not calling FloNight rude, I am saying it seems rude to just blat the Dutch article and replace it with an import. I hope that was clear. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understood the meaning of your comment. :-) Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 23:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe that the Draft: namespace exists over at nl.wp. The non-existence of the namespace would be one obvious reason why that can't be done.

I'm also a bit concerned about the description of current, active Dutch-speaking editors as "outsiders". Anyone who is currently contributing in Dutch should not be rejected as an "outsider". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

A few clarifications:

1. Regarding this edit which replaced previous mostly unreferenced content [5]. It was made by a fully fluent Dutch editor who is also a physician. True he mostly edits in English. But I am sure he read what was there before changing it.
2. This project involves first improving the English content to GA or FA in English followed by translation into other languages. It has generated a bunch of FAs and GAs in a number of languages. It has produced more than 30 GAs/FAs in English and more than 16 GAs/FAs in other languages.
3. I did place the translated text in a work space here [6] I did not replace the Dutch article. The request was that we are looking for local editors to integrate this text with the existing text. If the Dutch community does not want this then I am willing to ask the volunteer professional translators to stop.

We are happy to concentrate our efforts on languages in which there is no content. We are also happy to have the local language community completely manage the process such as in Italian. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

This is an interesting effort. As the German Wikipedia is listed among those in group four coming up next, may I ask what are the criteria according to which the editors involved here decide whether to replace an existing article in a different language version or not? I gather that so far no editor is into German at this point of time. Apart from that, I share the concerns of the original poster as to cultural bias in information. Medicine is a case in point. What makes you healthy depends strongly on cultural habits and attitudes. This is why the anglo-saxon model of medicine cannot simply be transferred to other societies. This looks to me as though there were an English Wikipedia project interfering with local community efforts without prior consent. Is this so, or am I getting this wrong?—Thx.--Aschmidt (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Even if the translator is a Dutch physician, I feel that there still should be some kind of discussion about it first. I personally know a lot about North-East Brazil. But on the Dutch Wikipedia, I can't just take someone else's article about a subject from North-East Brazil, hit Delete, and replace it with my own article. That wouldn't be accepted, even if my article were better. I don't think the Dutch Wikipedia works like that. And it would be worse if I was someone who wasn't known to the community. I'm not against the project per se, but you have to take time and effort to do it together with the local Wikipedia's. LeRoc (talk) 02:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

No the translator is not a Dutch physician, the integrator is a Dutch Physician Wikipedian.

With respect to "What makes you healthy depends strongly on cultural habits and attitudes," it is not really true. When a german person gets pneumonia or HIV/AIDs most of the medical aspects are just the same as if a Canadian or Swahili person got the same.

I have worked in Brazil in cardiac surgery. While they do relatively more valve replacements there than CABGs most cases are still CABGs done with the exact same technique as that in the rest of the world.

With respect to translating into German, this is possible, we will only translate articles that the community tags that they wish translated. There are no real plans otherwise to translate into German. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for elaborating. This is exactly what I mean by What makes you healthy depends strongly on cultural habits and attitudes. ;) Of course, if you have pneumonia or HIV/AIDS, your point may hold true. But I've spoken to a German GP who worked in Britain for some years, and the British NHS in many respects takes a completely different approach to what medicine a doctor might give to you than we would expect in this country. It is well known that doctors in different countries may well focus on different diseases and may apply different treatments when being confronted with the same symptoms. There are indeed different approaches to healing which should be described in the different language versions. Also, there is no such thing as a "neutral" translation. A good translation would take these differences between societies and health systems into account. This holds particularly true when content from English Wikipedia is "exported" to small language versions for non-Western countries. Also, alternative views on medicine usually are not properly represented, but this is a general problem on Wikipedia. I agree to LeRoc's suggestion to hold a discussion before simply replacing an article.--Aschmidt (talk) 09:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I want to sneak in here with my opinion. I think that the whole discussion should have happened within the Dutch Wikipedia community before the translation into Dutch started. With all objections/questions addressed beforehand - in the local language - the misunderstandings (and any arguments) could have been avoided. As the Translation Project continues, I hope that it will have learned from this episode. --Hordaland (talk) 10:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Exactly my point. LeRoc (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

That some countries may have different practices is not justification for making the translations different. Rather, the master English version as well as the translation should be updated to explain the national differences. There is not one truth for one language and one for another (nor one verifiablity, to be precise). To have such a problem strikes me as a consequence of an ill-advised notion to impose "best" practices on an article, when really, we should always be giving a sense of the full range of practices and explain the historical and 'alternative' practices as well. That said, in the interim, whichever version is longer should be live until the changes are gone over, with preference for native language versions or well-edited versions when length is similar. Wnt (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I beg to differ, be it most of all because this project appears to be a one-way street from English to anywhere else which does not seem to respect other points of view. Of course there are many different opinions on the same topic in all sorts of subjects, including medicine. What we need most would be a transfer from the non-English-speaking world to the English-speaking because the latter tend to ignore us completely. E.g., we usually take into account English scientific papers, while German or French papers are usually not read by, say, American scholars. I gather from the rest of the discussion on the Dutch Wikipedia that they a getting closer to a solution now, but I think this incident is a case in point for the state of the Wikipedia movement as a whole which still is too much dominated by anglo-saxon thinking, while we are all equal. This would probably be the most important meaning of diversity for all Wikimedia contributors.--Aschmidt (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, just because you disagree with me doesn't mean I have to disagree with you. :) Maybe we could compromise by saying that if an English translation replaces a much shorter Dutch (etc.) article, the article should carry a prominent tag linking to the historical version it replaced, until the Dutch editors decide to remove it. And the article ought to be watched so the changes made afterward can be reverse translated to English for us to review here. But I'm afraid most of the bilingual editors to do that watching and to integrate the changes here would have to be drawn from the Dutch project, since most of us aren't going to do well with it. Wnt (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually Aschmidt that is not true. In fact many of the topic Dutch medical researchers are publishing in English as English is the language of academic medicine. When I trained in Switzerland and Brazil many of the students were studying medicine in English. I include a fair bit of Chinese research in my practice as they are coming out with large cardiovascular studies. The same for literature out of Sweden, Norway and Denmark where they have huge patient databases. Much great literature is from the non English speaking world but they are publishing it in English. German may be an exception, I do not know. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about medicine, but German can be an exception in other subjects. As an undergraduate in a humanities subject unrelated to German at an English university, I remember one tutor telling us, "in this section of the syllabus, much of the best research is written in German. If you don't have at least basic competence in reading German, and a willingness to use it, then you are going to be at a major disadvantage". I imagine a proportion of (better?) American scholars will be competent in languages other than English, but admittedly many will not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

With respect to getting permission from each individual community before hand, we tried and no one was particularly interested until I had example to show them. And even then it is a bit of a push.

What happened to being BOLD? Anyway now we have example. We are stopping translation into Dutch until we get uptake from the Dutch community. If they do not integrate them / decide they do not want them than we will stop permanently. Yes these other large languages are much more complicated than small Wikipedias. In many languages were are creating articles were nothing existed before hand. In fact we have started one language for the content we have created. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

With respect to differences in evidence based medical practice in different areas of the world, they are very small. Some countries such as the USA are much less evidence based than others so we do see larger differences in actual practice. Wikipedia though is dealing with more evidence based practice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

What happened to being BOLD? – I wonder what would happen on English Wikipedia if, say, a French WikiProject came here and substituted some articles they had translated into English because they had decided they were better than what they found on enwiki up to then. What's more, I think the Wikipedia communities are now that much under pressure from all sorts of stress—technical from the WMF, psychic, vandals, reverting edits by PR agencies, etc.—that this makes it even worse. It has become more important to communicate more proficiently if you want to be successful with such a project. I think that's it. Besides avoiding the one-way street, of course.--Aschmidt (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

A complaint about the complexity of evaluating massive changes, followed by public rejoicing and an effort to keep the editor active and involved? It may be different in other areas, but when our medicine-focused editors find the rare person who is competent in both writing and technical work, we welcome them with open arms (and maybe the equivalent of golden handcuffs  ;-). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The aim, translating the same content from english wikipedia into all other languages reminds me somehow of Gleichschaltung and cultural imperialism.--Sinuhe20 (talk) 08:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

You will note we are not translating into German as the assumption is that German already has good medical content. Many languages have little or no content on the topics at hand. Thus we are replacing nothing with something most of the time. Yes I am aware that many major European languages only want content developed from scratch in their language using sources written in that language. Some have even taken measures to make translation more difficult. The luxury of demanding this is not present in many languages as they have few / no medical sources in their own language. Medicine information is only accessible by those who speak a major European language. The World Health Organization translates their content into many languages, is that also cultural imperialism? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

So you think italian, spanish and even chinese researchers haven’t published any significant medical content in their own language? Just because there is no article content in this languages yet doesn't mean there aren’t enough medical resources available. But apart from that I see it very sceptical having everwhere the same content, the same article structure, same selection of images, etc. This is against diversity. It would be better to translate maybe only the introduction to start and let the native speakers develop their own article.--Sinuhe20 (talk) 10:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Why third party analytic agent?

SearchMe Toolbar's doing. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I thought Wikimedia would be a place free of any 3rd party analytic agent, but suddenly I noticed my NoScript plugin blocked a bunch of third party sites when I was loading Wikimedia projects. I'm not convinced to be spied, even from Google. Actually Google blocks some function if you don't unblock gstatic.com, which is understandable. I am worrying that one day I wouldn't be able to access some feature of Wikimedia if I don't unblock few 3rd party site. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC) Sameboat - 同舟, are you sure about this? I get no trackers when I visit Commons according to DoNotTrackMe. --NeilN talk to me 14:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC) These are all the 3rd party sites reported by NoScript when I temporarily allow all sites and load Commons watchlist: ajax.googleapis.com, google-analytics.com, akamaihd.net, myfindright.com, tvlsvc.com, mscimg.com, mxpnl.com. Unless NoScript lies. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC) I get no trackers there. Maybe ask at WP:VPT to sort this out? --NeilN talk to me 15:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC) Ghostery is also worth trying. As far as I can see, Wikipedia and Commons pages have a zero rating on Ghostery for things like Google Analytics. These sites would not need it anyway, because they are serving no advertisements.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Google Analytics is useful for a lot more than ads. I use it on my personal website to find out how many views each blog post is getting, which links they are coming from, etc. I don't know whether Wikipedia needs that sort of info, but to me it is valuable. Looie496 (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

@Looie496: All this information (and more) is available from standard web server logs. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC).

Sameboat, you opened this discussion and then closed it yourself, presumably when you realized that you've downloaded a toolbar that does this to you. I'm just wondering: now that you've looked into it do you think the toolbar is doing something nefarious or untrustworthy or against their own disclosures or terms of service? Or is it just one of those highly intrusive things that people sometimes accidentally install without realizing the consequences, or..? Just curious mainly because there was that "better Wikipedia" extension that I tested out the other day that then wanted to redirect all my pageviews at Wikipedia to their own site in quite an unpleasant manner, and I'm just thinking about such software these days.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It's in their "privacy policy" which they further water down by referring to third-party apps and their policies. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I only closed the technical bit I mistook Wikimedia, you can go on discuss the ethic aspect of 3rd party site. The SearchMe Toolbar could be bundled with some free media codec package or plugin and snuck into my PC when I carelessly forgot to uncheck the installation option. I would never ever allow such thing to be installed no matter the intention is, I just feel unwell to be spied or hijacked to do their bidding. Having said that, I would conditionally allow minimal amount of analytic agent in order to enjoy the free commercial services like Facebook (akamaihd) and Google (gstatic). If there was the non intrusive alternative I would definitely go for it for the sake of my privacy, but you know it's impossible these days. Everyone (government, corporation, nonprofit or even individual who lured by corporation) wants to gather stats/privacy as much as as possible. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I use Ghostery and I'm very happy with it. My experience of the web is pretty minimally changed - every now and then I'm forced to allow some third party tracker in order to get some website to function, but unless there's a good reason for it, I only do a temporary "pause blocking" rather than "whitelist site".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: I also use Ghostery. It is nice when it comes up clean, as on Wikipedia. Will Wikia be like this one day? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC).

It's worth noting that the whole reason we have this problem is because Commons never expanded beyond images to allowing file downloads. I understand, of course, that file downloads have a lot of potential problems, but when we look at the disreputable sites that so often are pushed at users, where every download is a battle of wits against being conned into "drive-by downloads that install "PUP"s that rapidly end up being trojans and viruses and botnets, the Internet definitely needs better options. Even the formerly reputable Sourceforge was bought out and announced its entry into "enhanced" installers.[7] Wnt (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Now that Windows XP support has ended, many older PCs would benefit from being converted to Linux. It is much harder to get junk toolbars and malware on to a Linux PC. I can recall getting the Babylon toolbar on to a Windows PC and it is extraordinarily hard to remove.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Two more WMF donors editing Wikipedia

Jimmy, would you be kind enough to look at the allegations described in this blog post, then comment on them? - 2001:558:1404:0:0:5EFE:A19:F327 (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure. It's a dishonest headline, implying that if you donate to the Wikimedia Foundation, you get "benefits" in terms of your article. You know that's 100% false.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

If that's 100% false, then you imply that there will be community-initiated repercussions for the COI editing that has been taking place regarding all of the article subjects that Wikipediocracy's series has exposed? Once you show that the Wikipedia community actually takes all of this seriously, and the COI edits are rolled back, and the involved editors are admonished on their Talk pages, then I'm sure that Wikipediocracy would gladly change the title of this blog post, if the title of it is the most disturbing thing you're choosing to react to. - 2001:558:1400:10:8184:2AEA:A020:7890 (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't follow. You know as well as I do that the community does not give favoritism to COI edits by donors to the WMF. There is a problem with coping with COI edits overall, but there is not a problem with donations to WMF corrupting the process.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You're saying that a donation to the WMF has never corrupted the editing process on Wikipedia? Are you sure? Look, I completely see what you're saying, Jimbo. You're right, that a donation does not actually or even figuratively grant the donor a special exemption on Wikipedia, in terms of editing. (Although, there have been a couple of cases where I've seen comments like "They just gave the WMF a boatload of money, so we should have an article about them.") However, the fact does remain that the WMF's legal department has sent a cease-and-desist letter to a paid editing firm, and the WMF human resources department has fired an employee for the infraction of non-disclosed paid editing. But other than the Belfer Center fiasco post mortem, we have never, ever seen the WMF make any sort of public comment or provide meaningful feedback about any of the dozens of major donors who are participating in COI and/or paid advocacy editing (some with disclosure, many without). However, the WMF has made all kinds of public comments about firms like Wiki-PR or Bell Pottinger, for doing approximately the same thing as the donors are doing, but they didn't donate anything to the WMF. It is therefore not unreasonable to conclude that one measure of whether the WMF will formally respond to an allegation of COI/paid/advocacy editing or not, is whether the editor has made a financial donation to the WMF or not. Really, would it be so difficult for one of the WMF's legal staff, or even one of the "storytellers" on the payroll, to provide a public statement about how inappropriate it is for donors to the Wikimedia movement to be simultaneously manipulating content about themselves on Wikipedia in ways that skirt or are wholly outside of Wikipedia policy and guideline norms? Is there some reason you or the WMF would decline to do that? - 2001:558:1400:10:8184:2AEA:A020:7890 (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

All the chaff you throw at us makes it hard to tell if there's a real issue in there. That you think that ambiguity works in your favor makes us skeptical of your sincerity. The fact that someone donates has nothing to do with whether some IP or company shill (even from the same company) edits the article. They could do that anyway. The only legitimate accusations - the ones that could stand on their own, if they existed - would be that the WMF Office took actions to skew the article or protect the shills that go outside the stated norms of the community. Wnt (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The legitimate accusation is that the Wikimedia Foundation is happy to take large sums of money from donors who are disregarding the community guidelines for proper editing of the very project they are donating money to support; and that with the exception of the Belfer Center case, the Wikimedia Foundation has only ever made public statements against specific paid/COI editing situations when it was not a donor. Have you ever seen Planned Parenthood accept a large donation from an anti-abortion activist? - 2001:558:1400:10:982A:1673:FF0D:2920 (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure Bell Pottinger never donated? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC).

I am (fairly) sure that they never donated enough money to appear on the Wikimedia Foundation's published list that honors the heavy donors. Happy to be proved wrong, if you want to take the time to research it. - 2001:558:1400:10:982A:1673:FF0D:2920 (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

We should ask them for a donation. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC).

Well, after two days, it would appear that not a single editorial adjustment has been made on Mark Amin or MathWorks (or the various articles about its products), so what do we conclude? That Wikipedians will eventually address the problem of COI employee and paid-PR editing, just not now? That Wikipedians do address these problems, just not on these particular cases, because they were brought to our attention by a "troll"? Or, that Wikipedians do address these problems, just not in the cases of financial donors to the WMF? - 2001:558:1400:10:412B:35D4:A950:1B39 (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

That Wikipedians are volunteers and don't hop on command. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, you could have fooled me, Neil! Because when attention was called to a PR editor going to town on an article about a company that didn't donate a large sum of money to the Wikimedia Foundation, it only took two days for a Wikipedian to decimate the article with a hacksaw. I think I'll stick with my theory that COI articles about WMF donors are dealt with much more lightly than COI articles about non-donors, but thanks anyway! - 2001:558:1400:10:412B:35D4:A950:1B39 (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you can rest assured that it it not the third. Relatively few of us keep up with these donor lists. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Maria of Romania

I invoked thy name at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Maria of Romania. Bearian (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Great. I agree with you that the analogy may be helpful, but I'm not sure it really holds. Her father was not King of Romania when she was born, and the title was abolished. So a complete set of articles (which I do think is valuable) for the monarchy need not include her (as the monarchy is finished). The UK hereditary Peerages are different - if they are ever completely abolished I would still argue for a complete set of historical articles on the people who held the titles. But the argument for their descendants appears quite weak. To be clear, I think this means that I agree with you completely.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It is, perhaps, a matter of extent. Many royal houses have come and gone, those that have maintained their claims have sometimes regained the throne. Others choose to maintain the title, or are regularly referred as royalty to by third parties. Even were the UK's ruling house deprived of all power, symbolic and real, and all official title, I would expect to find the otherwise monarch to be a notable person for many generations. Conversely most descendants of baronets might well find that their lineage was an amusing after dinner tale and nothing more. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC).

Arbitrator AGK sending harassing email, makes legal threats

You may want to take a look at this. Duke Olav Otterson of Bornholm (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I see you didn't have the courtesy to notify AGK. I have. Dougweller (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting use of language there. You could have said "I see you forgot to notify AGK ...", but no, you're already trying to set the scene. Eric Corbett 15:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

This isn't ANI, you know. We have a perfect right to talk about people without them hounding every discussion involving them. On topic, these are some pretty serious claims. I don't think ArbCom has the ability to make legal threats without the WMF legal team's permission, and they certainly don't have means to enforce it. Frankly, even if they did, I don't think they should. KonveyorBelt 15:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. It is always so much better to prevent someone accused of malfeasance from defending themselves. Always a fine way to minimize drama. Resolute 16:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It would be even better if you addressed the issue, rather than attacked the messenger. I note that you, Dougweller and AGK are all administrators. Eric Corbett 16:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

There are numerous issues to discuss, however. The one I choose to address is the silly notion that AGK does not have the "perfect right" to be aware of this discussion. Resolute 16:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yet another sysop addressing form rather than substance. Eric Corbett 16:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

As much as I always enjoy your hypocrisy, Eric, I do intend to wait for AGK's response before judging. Resolute 16:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

A personal attack from an administrator now, that will no doubt go unremarked. How interesting. Eric Corbett 16:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You wound me, sir! Of course I would remark. How could anyone not enjoy such witty repartee with a paragon of civility such as yourself? I am merely listening to the advice you have given me but fail to follow yourself and choosing not to attack the messenger - at least not until I have more information. In this case, the messenger I am interested in is AGK. Resolute 16:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I actually think that was uncalled for here Resolute and it was indeed a personal attack. You brought up your opinion of Eric and he has not said one thing here to deserve the insult.--Maleko Mela (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm just still here, much to the chagrin of sysops such as Resolute. That's enough for them to feel they have the right to keep mouthing off. Eric Corbett 21:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Speaking in my personal capacity, I just want to point out that this was not an e-mail from or on behalf of ArbCom, but rather an e-mail from an administrator who is also a current member of ArbCom. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

So that makes it OK then in your eyes? Eric Corbett 16:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

What I wrote was pretty clear. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Not to me it wasn't, it seemed evasive to me. Eric Corbett 16:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

What Salvio giuliano should have said is "This is not an e-mail from ArbCom, and it is unreasonable to think otherwise." AGK [•] 20:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thus, he would have even less authority then he pretends to have. Admins can't do anything against anybody offwiki. Impersonating the WMF to appear to have a legal authority is even worse. KonveyorBelt 16:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this case to the extant I know who did what or why a ban was put into place. But I do know about protecting your own website and notifying the @abuse about problem users. I've done it dozens and dozens of times(mostly on my own website) to try and save files and prevent further disruption. Is it a Wikipedia policy to also notify the @abuse admins of persistent ip abusers? It may seem like something one wouldn't want to do, but something someone might have to do if there were little or no alternatives. So you might look at the email in another way, as perhaps reaching out to someone so the last resort is not the only alternative. Or maybe I'm wrong, I don't know that much about this issue. Thanks. Also, Konveyor Belt, you removed my comment. Dave Dial (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I did? I got two consecutive edit conflicts, it must have been a mistake. I'm unclear about our ISP notifying policy. As I noted below, WP:ABUSE was the former policy, but it is deprecated. What I do know, is that admins cannot send emails vigilante-style. You doing these things is ok because it is your own website, and you own and manage it. AGK does not own Wikipedia, and as such he cannot act on its behalf. KonveyorBelt 16:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I figured it was something along those lines(Re - comment removal). as for the @abuse notifications, I've not just done them on my own website. I've been an administrator ...on numerous sites, and have done so there too. Most of the time you are just swatting flies(trolls, hacks, etc), but if one becomes so persistent that you have to do something, notifying the @abuse is a sort of last resort. Heck, after having several of my webpages hijacked I even went notified a proxy at an University. I think it depends on what kind of abuse you are dealing with, and if you believe the individual will stop on their own. You can't just let people disrupt pages and take away the time(and in some other cases money) from other employees/volunteers. Dave Dial (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

What kind of disruption were you dealing with, exactly? KonveyorBelt 17:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Well it depends on what site I was at. Sometimes hackers putting in scripts and redirects to steal customers, other times enforcing community guidelines(such as racism, threats, harassment) that were continuously abused from certain IPs. Dave Dial (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I would suppose Kumioko does not fall under those categories, and there is probably no need to contact his ISP. What you dealt with is serious vandalism. Kumioko is not a vandal, just a whiner. KonveyorBelt 17:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, most in not all service providers do provide an abuse@oursite.com means for complaints to be files against the service provider's users. I'd be curious to know just what level of alleged abuse must take place before a designated Wikimedia person can escalate a matter to that level though, which is quite above and beyond the isusance of on-wiki blocks and bans and such. Can individual admins do this? CUs? Stewards? I'm wondering if this has ever been formally discussed anywhere on the project. Tarc (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The former policy was WP:ABUSE; that is now deprecated. Also, Kumioko would not fit those requirements. KonveyorBelt 16:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I would think any concerned editor could write the @abuse admin, unless there is a policy against it. It's common knowledge and you need only do a Whois or even click a button for the information. Dave Dial (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

What is the basis for the claim of a "legal threat"?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

"If you are in the armed forces, or a civilian employee of them, you are jeopardising your employment and risking real life disciplinary action. Please do not force us to contact your employer." is what part of the email said, according to Kumioko. KonveyorBelt 17:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that, but the fact that disciplinary action may be take by one's employer has nothing to do with "legal action", i.e., as in an action taken in a court of law.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I see no legal action spoken of. There used to be a group of volunteers who would contact the ISPs of vandals to alert them of the damage they were doing. This sounds like something similar. I've never heard of an admin sending an email like this (but, of course, it would be unlikely to be reported by the editor), but if a long-time abuse editor is editing from a workplace company, it's not illogical to send a notice to the company or organization. I believe that there should be somewhere on Wikipedia where taking this step is mentioned as a possible admin action and such notices can be logged in (maybe on a SPI archive page). If it already exists, please post a link. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

There are certain situations in which DoD employees are subject to the UCMJ. So, what the Arb member e-mailed could be construed as a legal threat, yes. According to what is posted on the "Other Site" there, AGK is rather strongly implying that due to the nature of this person's particular employer, this person would be subject to discipline rather more severe than what a normal user at a civilian ISP would be subject to. Tarc (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I Completely agree with tark myself? one of the others here?how about just:WP:Abuse Response can do that. no legal threats, no impersonation of WMF, just a routine thing, really. 75* 17:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that Tarc intended to imply that there was a legal threat, so you may want to re-read the posts.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I think most editors here know how to read, thanks. The issue here is, is it really fair to jeopardize one's career over allegations of being a nuisance on a website? There could be legal consequences here, it's not quite the same as forwarding a complaint to a Comcast or a Time-Warner. Tarc (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Your use of tense is rather interesting. Did you mean to say "is it really fair that one's career is jeopardized over allegations of being a nuisance on a website"? Eric Corbett 20:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

75, Wikipedia:Abuse Response would have been the agent for this action but that project is inactive. Back in the fall, I left a message for every volunteer listed to see if they wanted to revive the project but I got no response, I reported it to WP:AN and the project was marked as inactive (historical). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• My take: Kumioko has been a bit of a provocative dick over the last few months (he takes too much joy in throwing metaphorical gasoline bombs) but I find AGK's threat of real life retribution to be abhorrent, repellant, obnoxious, and probably actionable on-wiki. Carrite (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know how even to reply to a comment that plumbs such depths of absurdity. AGK [•] 20:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  You could start by clarifying whether or not you threatened to contact Kumioko's employer, and on whose behalf you were using the pronoun "us". On the other hand you could continue to prevaricate and obfuscate. I know which my money is on. Eric Corbett 21:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Banned users who are socking every evening are usually fought using an ISP Abuse Report. This is fairly ordinary for cases of advanced abuse, both on Wikipedia and elsewhere on the internet. This tactic has not been used to date because Kumioko's ISP is also his employer. I e-mailed Kumioko after his most recent spree of abusive socking, in reply to one of the long, angry e-mails he sends a few times week, threatening to "never stop", "never give up", etc. My e-mail was not signed or remotely suggested as being for ArbCom.

  This e-mail alerted Kumioko to the fact that when an abuse report is filed, as it inevitably would be if he did not let up, it is likely to affect his employment and cause trouble to his real life. I did not say "I will call your employer and rat you out." This would be abhorrent, and I am outraged at the people who suggest this is what I did. My message was very clearly framed as a plea for Kumioko not to force Wikipedia's hand, with such desperate consequences. I am utterly certain that I would write this e-mail again, even if I knew some people here would misinterpret it, because the alternative is to wreck a man's livelihood and life. A misguided man waging a farcical campaign against a website, but a real, living man nevertheless. AGK [•] 20:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  "If you are in the armed forces, or a civilian employee of them, you are jeopardising your employment and risking real life disciplinary action. Please do not force us to contact your employer." Could you please explain who this "us" is, as your colleague Salvio giuliano has claimed that you were acting on your own? Eric Corbett 20:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  Wikipedia, collectively; or whichever administrator comes home after a hard day, has to revert more rubbish, decides enough is enough, and files the abuse report. The e-mail from Kumioko, that I said that in reply to, stated (for the umpteenth time) "I don't recognise my ban" and reiterated the "I'll never stop" line. I replied to say "If you don't stop, you do realise your superiors will find out about it? The ISP Abuse Report will go to your ISP!" A reality check for someone who has lost touch with reality, not a legal threat. Don't believe everything you think you understand from e-mails posted without context by a banned user with a grudge against you and every other Wikipedian. AGK [•] 21:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  With all due respect, you seem to be away with the fairies. There's a very simple question you have been evading for some time now, which is this: did you threaten to contact Kumiuoko's employer. And if you didn't, how do you explain the "us" in the quoted email? Eric Corbett 21:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  Can you read? I just have. AGK [•] 21:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  I can read, but you apparently can't write, at least not convincingly. Eric Corbett 21:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  "Threaten" is loaded language.We can Threaten to block people, ban people and file ISP reports on people if it is necessary. No big deal. If community thinks this is should not be done in this case, let them decree so. No wrongdoing. 75* 21:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  I think the conflict here is that AGK is talking about a routine procedure of notifying ISP for long-time vandals. In this case though because the individual edits at work, the ISP would be his employer. If he edited from home, this notice would go to Comcast or some company. So, yes, it is notifying his employer but only because they are the ISP. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

These accusations are ridiculous. no legal threats here. And, Tark, Ubikwit was right. I messed up. I don't completely agree with you. 75* 21:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

And, Corbett, my guess is they meant WP: Abuse response by "us". Supported by precedent.

not sure, due to me being different person than AGK. 75* 21:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@ Liz: I see. Still, AGK's actions have precedent. Certainly not a legal threat. 75* 21:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• If the wording is accurate, it's a threat, just not a legal one. The email content is well below the standard I would expect from anyone in any organisation. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 21:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

How, Suncreator, How? Seems fine to me, not sure why so many people are so angry about this.

With precedent."Threat" of action against actual problem. O K. 75* 21:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't access the site to read the content now, but I doubt further comment is useful. I don't know anyone that is angry about it either. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 22:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I think if editors are upset with this email, they should discuss whether Wikipedia should or should not be sending out these notices to anyone, and not just focus on this instance. I think these notices are pretty standard but the focus should be on how to address long-time vandals, especially ones that deluge admins and ARBCOM with email messages saying they have no intention of stopping their disruptive behavior. What would you have admins do in response? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Pretty standard where? Wikipedia didn't send out this email anyway, it came from AGK, who apparently took it upon himself to speak for everyone. He certainly wasn't speaking for me though. Eric Corbett 22:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Banned users who are socking every evening are usually fought using an ISP Abuse Report. This is fairly ordinary for cases of advanced abuse, both on Wikipedia and elsewhere on the internet."

I judge this to mean that this was a standard response, Eric. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

"As I understand from previous, similar abuse reports filed with the Navy etc., the DOD take an extremely dim view of employees using their networks in this manner." does not look like boilerplate material. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC).

Clearly not. Boilerplate material is probably an abuse report to an ISP in a routine circumstance. AGK's argument for this email is that by following what appears to be standard operating procedure, the real-life consequences to Kumioko could potentially be greater than the standard ISP form letter. So perhaps a relevant question is this: Should AGK have simply followed that standard procedure and filed an ISP report with DoD and paid no heed to the potential consequences, or was reaching out with a caution first the preferable alternative? Resolute 22:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I think questions have to be asked of a process that took a editor of good standing with 16 features articles, plus other great contributions and 400,000 edits, an admin candidate, into a situation of being a banned sock and now this email. It's a failure of process. The process has achieved nothing, and it's hard to imagine a more inappropriate outcome. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 22:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• It does seem that @AGK: is taking this very personally, despite his claims to the contrary. He has edit-warred over his thoughtless blanking of archive pages, made statements at variance with the facts, been most incivil (same post, for example), and disengaged with discussion (same post) - on no basis other than self proclaimed superiority. This same attitude was shown where he responded to FT2's I'd like to hear from people who aren't admins and CheckUsers first, before judging if we can do better.. with no, I don't think we should - though he at least had the grace to backpedal in a subsequent post. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC).
  

• For reasons that will be obvious, I think that comment says more about you than it does about anything else. You are horribly invested, and I am disappointed you failed to admit as much. AGK [•] 11:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Attempting to blame your edit warring on the person that is reporting it is transparent. You have claimed to be dispassionate, you are fairly clearly WP:INVOLVED, taking the socking as a challenge, and acting in an extreme (and ineffective) manner to attempt to stop it. It's not clear why chose this particular user to exercise these measures on. You should really disengage. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC).
  

• As someone pointed out, in the event of a military member being reported for abuse, it is basically a criminal matter. If I were an Airman (and I was in the 1980s) and I had done what Kumioko had done and it was pointed out to my First Sergeant (FS), I could easy be coping a plea under Article 15 of the UCMJ to avoid a court martial, maybe to include a week or two in CC (correctional custody, ie: bad jail). Really, it all just depends on the FS. My FS was a bit of a hard ass, but they vary. Whether it was just a really bad idea or an unveiled threat, it really wasn't a shining example of dealing with the problem. In particular "do not force us to contact your employer" (emphasis added) implies either ArbCom is behind the email, or you speak for all of Wikipedia. That just seems to be beyond the authority we admin are granted. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  Quite. Strange that some seem so blind to that evident fact, although not so strange that they're all admins themselves. Eric Corbett 22:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  • At the same time, Wikipedia carries no obligation to put up with abusive banned editors simply because they make a poor decision to use their employer's network as a platform to launch said abuse. However, there is a valid argument in cases where something like DoD or other governmental agencies are involved that it would be a better idea to kick the can up to the foundation level rather than act independently - but that might also require confidence that the foundation would act in support the community in such cases. Resolute 22:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

    • What disturbs me is that if AGK was acting only as an admin and it was "ok" to do that, then you or I could have done the same thing. No, had I made a similar threat, I would expect to be dragged in front of Arb to answer for my judgement, although I don't anticipate that here. Any time a threat that can border on being "legal" is involved, the community has zero authority, be it one admin or all of Arb. (or should be, as we are volunteers) That authority is reserved for the Foundation only. And of course none of this excuses K's behavior, I've reverted him off WP:BN myself, but under no circumstance does that justify stretching the admin bit past the breaking point. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

      • Why is it not "advice" and a "warning" which, of course, editors and admins do? If an editor writes to you, "I am going to sock until the cows come home (and I know you know my ISP's)" what is the response you could/should give? As an administrator? As an elected conduct reviewer? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

        • I've already explained this, admin simply do not have the authority to make a threat like this. AGK has no more authority than I do when acting as an individual, even if he choose to use "us" in his email. Admin authority doesn't automatically increase because a banned editor is being dickish. The email was ineffective, but even if worked, the ends do not justify the means. No editor violation ever justifies an admin going beyond their authority. None. It isn't even about Kumioko at this point, it is about admin accountability. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

          • • I don't see a response to the several questions I posed. I guess you mean "no authority" is your answer to my first question that it's not a "warning". I'm not sure that answers that but, OK. Would you answer my other questions? "If an editor writes to you, "I am going to sock until the cows come home (and I know you know my ISP's)" what is the response you could/should give? As an administrator? As an elected conduct reviewer? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
              • First, I wouldn't threaten to turn them into their DOD employer. Second, I've done well over 1000 sock blocks, so I have a record that can be examined by anyone, and a reasonable amount of experience from which to base my opinion. Debating what I would do is pointless. This isn't about me, it is about AGK and the unwise use of a threat. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
                • I'm not asking what you would not do. I'm not even asking what you personally would do (although I would hope your experience would inform your answer). I am asking what could/should be the response to If an editor e-mails to you as an admin or an elected conduct reviewer, "I am going to sock until the cows come home (and I know you know my ISP's)" What response is within discretion? Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
                  • Normally, if you felt it worthy of a response, you would forward that to ArbCom, who placed the ban and should respond (or not) as a whole. Being a member of ArbCom wouldn't change that. If that letter had gone to Arb, I sincerely doubt Newyorkbrad (and some others) would have approved that wording, which is why you let Arb deal with it as a whole. And I'm not seeking punishment, just the same accountability that I would be held to, so we don't see this again. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
                    • Well, ok, but here there is a community ban, does that change your advice to 'go to arbcom'? Thanks for the answers, no need to belabor, but I will note that discretion usually has a range of responses, and to consider that one of them might be a warning, about how these things play-out (if it goes to the next steps) is something to contemplate. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
                    • Only Arb or the Foundation should even consider wording of this type, which may have clouded his judgement since he is an individual Arb. This was a threat to their job, and in some circumstances, could be to their liberty. No admin or random group of admin have the authority or right to do that. If it was only a warning, we wouldn't be here discussing it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
                      • • It is probably somewhat unusual for someone to e-mail even an arb, and belabor a point they have repeatedly belabored, that they know we have rules against their using this site but they will ignore them all with impunity. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• • • • • • IMO, we would get farther if we focus on closing an apparent gap in process more than anything else. It seems evident from AGK's comments that reports to ISPs for egregious violators of the TOS are not uncommon. Though I have no idea how frequently this happens. Once a week? Once a month? Less? More? There is perhaps a question of how we as a community should handle this. Those foolish enough to use their workplace networks as part of their pattern of abuse become a second layer to this question. I can accept both that Kumioko viewed this email as a threat, and that AGK was acting in good faith believing it was advice/a warning. Perhaps for these cases, we need a process where an admin/arb/crat/WMF member/whatever is empowered to speak on behalf of the community in assessing such a warning - and probably one with greater tact - and if necessary, a report. Resolute 23:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Dennis Brown, you have written a very good proof for trying to stop Kumioko from getting into trouble when one administrator or another finally files the long-overdue abuse report. Such a report has only not happened so far because Kumioko's ISP is his employer; if he were only using domestic ISPs, it would unquestionably have been filed weeks ago. It therefore sounds as though you are recommending doing everything we can to avoid getting him into RL trouble, which is exactly what my e-mail tried to do. Why, then, have you condemned my plea for Kumioko not to continue jeopardising his job and causing the horrible consequences you have avidly described? AGK [•] 11:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• AGK, I'm not questioning you giving him a warning just the DOD part. You haven't denied that so I assume that sliver of the email is accurate by your own responses here. You and I (and most everyone) agrees that Kumioko's behavior has been way over the line, that isn't even on the table. I reverted him off BN myself and have avoided interacting with him during his tantrum. But there is a huge difference in threatening someone's internet access and someone's job, and in this case, perhaps his liberty. I do not want admin doing that. Not me, not you, not any individual admin. That is way above our pay grade. Perhaps because you are in Arb and used to help crafting similar emails, you overstepped a bit as an individual, but I'm sorry, I feel you did overstep. Under no circumstances an I asking for your head on a platter, I just don't want to see a precedent set here. Maybe you aren't familiar with the military (I was raised in an active military family before I joined) and not aware of the consequences, again why individual admin shouldn't do that. Perhaps because I DO understand the ramifications, it is easy for me to empathize here. Perhaps if the wording had been different, conveyed in a less threatening manner. I literally winced when I read that. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

So...Admin can contact your employer for violations of terms of service? Even if not a completely accurate description of the event you did make it sound that way. You will have to excuse me AGK if I find that outrageous. Even more so knowing that you would use information you, yourself got off the this site, either by research or declaration to affect someone in real life. I am actually shocked by this. It is one thing to actually do this, perhaps thinking that this is such an extreme case that contacting the Department of Defense as an ISP report for security of abuse but a whole different issue to send out a "Warning" of this nature by email and think it would not be taken as a threat? Yes, if this is real you did threaten them with what you are describing as more then a "terms of service" abuse but something extreme enough that your message sounds as n intent to have them fired ...or arrested. I see this as a borderline legal threat. If something is seriously wrong with the IP coming out of the DOD...block it. They won't care and anyone who wants to do so may register an account or continue editing on their private IPs. But what I think is wrong here is that AGK is assuming one person on a known DOD IP where others have access. If that is the case we have an obligation to block that IP if it is truly such an extreme case first before anyone calls this an abuse to make any report. Seriously, a sockpuppet case being forwarded to the Department of Defense (if even as an ISP abuse)? If this guy isn't threatening to kill someone, cause bodily or property injury or destruction...just what exactly do you expect the Defense department to do? Seriously...have your ever called or contacted the DOD for something like this? There has to be a very solid reason to involve the Department of Defense as an employer because they do defend the employees right to freedom of speech. If you feel the person is being abusive but doesn't cross certain lines...a lot of this is up to you AGK to use the tools you were given and not go off Wiki to attempt real life action. Don't we still have an emergency response team? Is this is? I gotta tell you AGK...you don't sound that much better than the NSA. Using our information for your security concerns? How many others in Arbcom knew about this and is this standard?--Maleko Mela (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Rules are relative, what is problematic behavior within Wikipedia isn't necessarily problematic in an absolute sense. If I decide to pick up my vacuum cleaner to get rid of an ants nest in my home, I'm probably violating the rules that govern that ants nest. Count Iblis (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm reminded of a situation recently in the UK here when a representative of the UKIP political party called in the police over a tweet criticising his party, brilliantly satirised here. Of course this is terribly serious. AGK's maturity and judgement are in doubt here. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Rules were broken here. But just contacting an ISP to report abuse is not the same as an employer which was the problem with the message...not making a report to the ISP, even if it is the DOD. That alone would not have been anything we would even need to know about. We know that happens as standard practice. But emailing (even in response to "I'll never stop") someone and purposely discussing what they perceive could be the outcome does become a borderline legal threat. That is what concerns me, and that it came from someone I don't usually associate as unreasonable, but do know some have had issue with. At least my watch list seems to indicate that a small handful of editors take issue with AGK at times, whether fairly or unfairly, I don't know.--Maleko Mela (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Last post from me on this. I'm not concerned about any actions against AGK. We don't punish editors and I am not his mommy looking for a promise "never to do it again". I am concerned that we don't seem to be handling abuse here or even what abuse is. Socking is abusive by our community standard...but I sure hope that alone is not an ISP report. I would hope there were security reasons such as bullying, threatening or harassing behavior of the pale that we have no choice but make a formal abuse report to the ISP, but these are not going to get you arrested unless you have crossed the lines I mention and be both extreme and credible. Just refusing to stop posting is not abuse, it is a violation of terms of service. Now, I don't think they passed any laws that I am aware of (they tried) that make violating terms of service to be a criminal act. It amounts to mischief even if it spoils an admins day having to deal with it over and over. If you need help, ask, don't get worn out.--Maleko Mela (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Dennis Brown for explaining the UCMJ aspect more clearly than I was. The thing is, complaining to an ISP is a huge escalation in the attempts to deal with a user one believes is problematic. I have doubts that this is done for the ones that are actually abusive, i.e. the racists, the death threat issuers, the long-term agenda warriors, so why does a single admin get to take it upon himself to strike out at an editor in his personal life rather than dealing with it on-wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarc (talk • contribs) 23:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Two thoughts. First, I am disappointed but unsurprised by the ongoing and naive insistence that "the internet" or "Wikipedia" are entities somehow separate and distinct from the "real world", and that one's conduct in one can't possibly result in consequences in the other. Wikipedia is an organization that is physically located in reality, depending on and governed by living human beings on a very real planet Earth. Wikipedia's tolerance for trolling and abuse is remarkably deep, but not infinitely so. If a persistently abusive individual's only point of contact with us is through his employer's computers, then through his employer is about the only way we're able to respond.

Second, isn't anyone just a little bit freaked out that someone associated with the U.S. armed forces is this...well, unhealthily obsessed? I mean, the guy has been asked to leave, but he keeps coming back, dozens and dozens of times, over many months, with no sign of flagging or understanding that his behavior is inappropriate. Perhaps it's tied into some sort of "Wikipedia isn't part of reality" belief (see point #1), but still...it's not healthy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

a[n] … individual's only point of contact with us is through his employer's computers - it isn't. This editor uses domestic IPs and wifi hotspots. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC).

I have an idea. We go to some place other than Jimbo's talk page (he hasn't even commented!) and decide this policy once and for all, if we are displeased with it. In the mean time, decide if this case needs an ISP report. I presume good faith on AGK's part. 75* 01:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This is not a user talk page discussion. I do find it ironic that this email, trying to "warn" Kumioko about the consequences of his disruptive behavior, has had the opposite effect and brought him more attention than he ever had with his sock accounts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I have made the point clearly to AGK that this is not a case where taking retaliatory measures, will reduce the socking - it's a bad solution both technically and socially. Kumioko is not seeking attention for his socking, he is seeking attention for admin abuse, rightly or wrongly. Treating him as if he were a classic "I can vandalize Wikipedia" sockmaster is a mistake of the first order. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC).

• Anyone can report an abusive IP. It doesn't take an admin, and it sure doesn't take an ArbCom member. Any editor can report an IP to their abuse@whateverfuckingdomain.com and try to put a stop to the disruption. So while we are arguing about this, try to remember who the banned editor is and the threats to continue disrupting the project all over the Talk pages and boards. Over and over and over and over. So whose fault would it be that someone got sick of the disruption and reported the IP? And whose fault is it the IP is a work IP? Come on now. Let's tone down the drama of 'legal threats'. That's just plain stupid. Dave Dial (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the others who think that reporting users to an ISP is an extraordinary step. While it is true that IPs are vulnerable, people with accounts are supposed to have their privacy protected to avoid that happening. While I can picture very rare cases where it is needed, yet legal action couldn't be taken, I'd suggest reporting should be at least subject to two important safeguards:

• Keep a kosher kitchen (i.e. different pans for meat and milk) -- the admins making decisions to block someone should be completely separated from those running any process to report abuse to ISPs. There should be no way for one angry user to bull through the whole process from initial block to angry letter to someone's employer.

• Keep it simple -- have a form letter that says: The user who edited from this IP at this time has been blocked from Wikipedia by a community process, but won't stop, so please stop him. Don't out his account, don't go into his real or imagined crimes. And the group of people who evaluate the idea of warning should only be looking at whether someone is blocked and won't stop and a complaint has been made, not the details of the conduct of that user.

Wnt (talk) 04:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• As I understand it, abuse@DOMAIN is a required email address so that anyone can complain about "inappropriate public behaviour". It's not a WMF job, nor an arb job - it's something that can be done by absolutely anyone if the ISP is being used for abuse of a public website. I pointed out to Kumioko 2 months ago that carrying on as he was would likely result in real world consequences. Kumioko has made it very clear to me by email on 2 April that he understands the risks that he might get "a letter to my work or my internet provider". So as to an actual abuse report, as long as everything else has been tried, this is a normal course of action and one Kumioko has long been aware might happen.

  Regarding AGK's email - I read it as a pleading request rather than a threat. Most ISPs aren't tied to employers, so the worst that can happen is loss of internet. AGK has realised that an abuse report to this ISP could result in more serious consequences and wanted to let Kumioko know that the abuse report (with those potential consequences) is imminent if he carries on. I understand how it can be read as a threat, but given the background and the level of understanding of the participants, I don't believe it should be. Worm^TT(talk) 05:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: This deserves closer examination. Sure, any WP user can contact providers for a given IP and file abuse reports -- which I should add is a big can of WP:BEANS; those seeking to disrupt Wikipedia might become far more effective by spamming complaints of this type rather than editing. Nonetheless, savvy ISPs will ignore complaints of random Wikipedia users about a few random edits from an IP address. When an admin links that IP via checkuser proceedings to the larger set of activities of a named account, and pseudo-formal administrative proceedings against that username, which was supposed to be private, and uses his position at Wikipedia to clamor for attention. That's a whole different level of trouble. Wnt (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I've filed many(as I stated above) abuse@ reports, and most responsible admins connected to the reports take care of the problem. You just send the report with a list of infractions and timestamps of the activity. It's not as if you(as a person) are trying to get someone in trouble with whatever facility the ip abusers are using, you are just trying to prevent further disruption. Unless there is some larger issue here, this seems pretty straight forward. Dave Dial (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there any question of whether a government agency can identify who has been editing from any one of its particular computers? These things are usually pretty tightly controlled. —Neotarf (talk) 05:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

A decent sysadmin can usually track it down. At least to a general location. Depending on how locked-down the networks are. FWIW as an ex-sysadmin and website host, I would have just notified the ISP (If editing from home) or the employer (if from work) without giving a warning to the individual like AGK did. Usually a threat of 'Deal with your problem or we will block access from all your IP's' (or my preferred option, just routing all incoming traffic from that IP range to hard-core porn, we could probably redirect all traffic from the DOD to commons with the same effect) gets quick results. While it tends not to stop the vandal concerned straight away, it does get quick action from the less tech-savvy management. If that means the employee gets fired? Not my problem. Abuse has consequences. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It depends what you want the reputation of your site to be. Obviously if some kid at a daycare center keeps vandalizing Wikipedia and you reroute all Main Page access from the site to hardcore porn, there will be complaints. Really though, I'd think that punitively blocking access is already too damaging to Wikipedia's reputation. After all, it's supposed to be a free encyclopedia, not an encyclopedia free to good people. The ordinary practice of range blocks on editing are as far as we want to go, and usually that puts the ball in the ISP's court to figure out why the range is being blocked if they care about having their people edit Wikipedia (which many don't anyway). Wnt (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• I would have simply told him to cease or his ISP would be notified and leave it at that.--MONGO 13:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

AGK did not, IMO, make a "legal threat" as in a "threat of litigation" but it is a "threat" in the sense that he is clearly writing with an implicit Arb hat on (Arbs writing sans-toque generally make that clear) - though the issue really seems to be whether this is a "routine email" or not. If it is "routine" we should be told how many precisely similar emails AGK has sent. If this is an "unusual case" (i.e. if it appears AGK does not send such emails as a rule) then the issue becomes far muddier as to intent. And far more concerning. Collect (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• One difference between hounding by AGK (I make no comment on that) and Wikipediocracy is that Wikipediocracy (and I rather suspect it was one of their members on that page) actually do contact your employers to complain about one's behaviour on-wiki. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

And such behaviour is indefensible and execrable. My concern is, however, clearly stated here. Collect (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

If Kumioko was implementing this ruling, then Wikipedia doesn't have many legs to stand on. Count Iblis (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

What Kumioko was doing has nothing whatsoever to do with this ruling, which was issued just yesterday, applies only in Europe, and affects individuals who wish to remove mention of their pasts from the 'net, which is the utter opposite of what Kumioko appears to be seeking. While the ruling indeed has important implications, mentioning it in this thread is a complete digression. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• There are 2 things here. First, original message seems to be very vague about who it is representing (who is that "us"?). This is absolutely silly then involving ArbCom members. In case any of them issues any kind of warnings by email, then it should be always crystal clear if that warning representing the whole Arbcom or only that individual admin. Vagueness only serves to make message more ominous while leaving room for backtracking. Second aspect is that who should be issuing such warnings anyway. Frankly I don't think individual admins are vetted sufficiently at RFA for doing such stuff on their own accord. In my opinion such actions should be handled by Arbcom or WMF.--Staberinde (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Any editor can report abuse by an IP. That's probably how it should be.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• • • I'm sorry, I'm sort of dull sometimes. Report where? To Wikipedia? Or to their employer, if they are editing with an IP connected to their work? Also, AFAICT "Kumioko" is not an IP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
      • They comment here and at WT:RFA pretty regularly as an IP. Anyone who wants their IP can find it easily - I tried, took me about a minute. WilyD 09:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking forward

I invite those who have expressed concern about AGK's e-mail (meaning the substance underlying it, not just the phrasing) to propose an alternate course of action that would help in putting an end to the disruption.

Kumioko's behavior since his community ban, which BASC declined to overturn, has been outrageous. He has had dozens of accounts and IPs blocked by this point. He has publicly stated that he aspires to become "the most prolific vandal, troll and sockmaster in Wikipedia history." He stated, "[s]o now if they want me to be a sockmaster, then fine, I'll pursue that with just as much enthusiasm as I did editing. I know they'll catch me eventually but in the mean time I will be a drain on resources and divert them from being able to do anything else." He has stated, "[s]ince my help wasn't wanted, I'll just distract them with socking and trolling as I find the time. Days or weeks might go by and it may come in waves but it'll be fun."

He has aspired to cause numerous innocent editors and would-be editors to be blocked as collateral damage, stating "I'll just be a pain in the ass and a distraction. In the process though a lot of innocent editors will be blocked (several already have), time will be distracted form the project and I'll have some fun. The only way they'll keep me away is if they range block the whole t-mobile and Verison Fios networks. I doubt they have the desire to do that." He added, "[m]aybe they ban editing from the Verizon network or t-mobile. Its hard to say what the long term effects will be, but its not going to be pleasant." In the same vein, "I have gotten 2 range blocks for Verizon Fios which means a lot of people coming from 172 or 208 will need to get an IPblock exemption to edit in which case most of them will assume its me and deny it. 1 for me, 0 for WP. I have also ... distracted several users. Childish perhaps but I am having fun."

That was a couple of months ago, soon after he was banned; since then, things have grown worse. Kumioko has repeatedly evaded and deliberately edited around the abuse filters that were written specifically to block his access. He has left taunting and disparaging messages for numerous users. He has indicated that he intends to continue to escalate these activities, never to stop, never to respect his ban under any circumstances. He has repeatedly misused the Echo feature by deliberately pinging dozens of arbitrators, functionaries, administrators and other editors for the purpose of harassing them. He has ignored my warnings that his continued editing is in breach of the Terms of Use, and a lengthy online explanation of how his activities raise legal issues. Yesterday he suggested with pride that he is now "public enemy number one" on Wikipedia.

Over the weekend, one of Kumioko's throwaway accounts vandalized a BLP. Although the specific instance of vandalism was puerile, quickly reverted, and relatively minor as these things go, it adds yet another new dimension to his improper behavior. (I withdraw this paragraph. See below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC))

Multiple arbitrators, functionaries, and others have invested hours of effort in attempts to get Kumioko to stop this behavior. I believe that by now a dozen people have reached out to him both on-wiki and offline, using all sorts of approaches, with no success at all. He seems determined to continue until he goads someone into taking an extraordinary action in response to his behavior, yet now turns around and professes to be shocked, shocked, at someone's warning him that if he, himself, makes the conscious decision to persist, something of that sort might now occur.

Like everyone else, certainly including AGK himself and everyone else I've seen comment on this matter, I would much prefer for Kumioko's real-world life and activities not to be affected in any way by what has become his unhealthy obsession with shrieking about alleged administrator abuse on Wikipedia. However, I would also like Kumioko to stop his disruptive and impermissible editing on the project he is banned from. An ISP report would obviously be a last resort, would obviously be controversial, and as important, it might or might not work. Who has a better idea? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a somewhat difficult scenario. Roger's post above seems to be correct insofar as WP:Deny recognition seems to come into play when higher ups are delegated the exclusive responsibility to handle such essentially trivial nuisances.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

the way I see it, it's no different than abuse on any other website. if somone was being abusive on this scale anywhere else, they would be reported to their ISP(s). in this case, at least one of the ISPs happens to possibly be his employer. it was his choice to use his employers internet access for abusive purposes, and he was almost certainly made aware of the consequences of such behavior when he was hired. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Who or what has been abused? Eric Corbett 18:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

the services of the wikipedia website are being abused. I thought that was obvious. it's a clear violation of wp:terms of use. the fact that the ISP is his employer is irrelevant. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 20:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

In what way are they being abused? Eric Corbett 21:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

sooo... you're claiming that kumiko is not socking and evading abusefilters? because both are considered abuse of the system,a s is vandalism. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 21:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not claiming anything, I'm asking a question, which has yet to be answered. Since when was evading abusefilters a crime? And everyone knows that many administrators operate "alternate accounts". Eric Corbett 21:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

you know what I mean by sockpuppetry. WP:SOCK. these are not legal issues. there's also the abuse of the echo system. see the terms of use section 4. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 21:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

What I know is that sockpuppets are ignored if they're administrators. What do you know? Eric Corbett 21:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

read wp:sock. it's pretty clear. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 21:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

What's clear to me is that sockpuppetry is acceptable if carried out by admins trying to hide their identity, but not by non-admins. Wasn't one recently desysoped for such after admitting to it? Eric Corbett 21:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I haven't heard of that. however, unless there is a secret rule that says that admins don't have to disclose socks as WP:RFA requires, I find that hard to believe. in any case, admin conspiracies are not whats being discussed here. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 22:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed; you got them there. Abusive sockpuppetry by admins is so "acceptable" that they get desysopped for it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to know why Wikipedia is not considered to be part of the "real world". Real people are taking real time to work on articles about real things. If someone is constantly harassing me over the telephone, I don't consider that part of the "telephone reality". If an editor is disruptive enough that arbs, admins, and yourself (hardly someone prone to hasty action) spend hours dealing with the fallout, I have no problem if a solution has real world consequences for the editor. No one has a right to edit Wikipedia and it is their own actions that trigger the consequences. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous proposition, akin to "He called me a bad name, therefore I had every right to kill him". Eric Corbett 18:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Reductio ad absurdum? Is that really the best you can do, Eric? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Not by a long chalk, but it seems to be the best that you can do. Eric Corbett 18:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Newyorkbrad, this dodges the real issue. As an admin, if I see a problem user who continues to sock horribly, and he has done so with an IP and user names such that I can determine his place of employment, are you stating that every admin is empowered with the authority to threaten another user with contacting their employer? If that is the case, we should do better vetting at RFA because I don't think most admin are competent enough to make that determination. At the very least, I want to see an ArbCom ruling to this effect. Even if we put the DOD criminal aspects to the side, this seems like something we normally reserve for the Arbitration Committee as a whole. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, my question wasn't rhetorical, I was quite sincere. I've never had a beef with AGK before, but this isn't even about Kumioko and AGK anymore, it is about the limits of power given to an admin, and admin accountability. I do think that clarity is needed, and you are setting a dangerous precedent by glossing over the more critical elements. Either this type of communication (involving job loss/liberty loss) is acceptable and every admin may do what AGK did, or he overstepped his authority, or you are giving preferential treatment. The number of options are limited here. It does seem that he has blurred the distinction between his role as admin and his authority as a single member of Arb. It should not take an Arb case for the community to see resolution here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether NYB is speaking personally or on behalf of either ArbCom or the WMF. Regardless though, I can see RfA becoming even tougher in the future than it has been in the past. Which to be honest I think is a good thing anyway, as it will hasten its reformation. Eric Corbett 18:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your post Dennis. It's not only admins or members of ArbCom that can report abusive IPs, ANY editor can do it. Any can, and any have. Probably hundreds upon hundreds of times. Have you never wrote an @abuse report? Do you believe that writing one should be something only admins can do? If so, we better stop allowing IPs being able to post at all, because it's a pretty simple process that any editor can take upon themselves to do. Dave Dial (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict; to Eric Corbett) I'm speaking for myself only, not in this instance for the Arbitration Committee, and never for the WMF. Of course, my perspective may be affected by the six-plus years I've served as an arbitrator, and readers are free to take that into account in evaluating what I have to say. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

And my perspective is formed by the seven years I've been an editor here, subjected to the same administrative abuse as Kumioko has. Don't try to play that card with me. Eric Corbett 19:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Any reporting seems like it is better kicked down the stairs than up. If any user can report abuse by a socking IP, then leave it to "any user" to do it. The higher the level of admin/arbitrator power being used to try to link the IP to a massive campaign using secret data in a presentation meant to cause trouble with his employer, the more likely WMF gets drawn into an ugly lawsuit. If someone wants to cut a path across Wikipedia ticking lots of people off, eventually someone will do that (minus anything secret or authoritative), but it doesn't have to be an admin who can be accused of acting on a grudge. Wnt (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm wondering why Dennis is focusing on admins? Anyone (doesn't even have to be a Wikipedia editor) can email an ISP's abuse department. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Emailing abuse@att.net is not the same as an administrator threatening to get you fired (or in the case of DOD, potentially in legal trouble). Not even close. I've already covered this above. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Right. Hang on. We have of course, numerous times in the past, contacted ISPs in the case of long term vandals - i.e. people who are degrading mainspace articles on a regular basis. Kumioko is not that. Whilst he might have claimed that he's going to become Wikipedia's enemy No.1, at the moment he's just someone else who has thrown his toys out of his pram because he failed an RfA. Surely the normal avenues of WP:DENY are enough here, especially if his ISP is his employer. Obviously, if he moves from the latter category to the former, then that's a separate issue. But it hasn't occurred yet. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

  Quite. I wonder where NYB is getting his evidence from? Eric Corbett 18:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

  That is kind of my point. Yet I've seen Newyorkbrad chatting Kumioko up on his own talk page, which isn't WP:DENYing. A calculated risk? Ok, I buy that, that is fine and within the authority of an admin in trying to reason with him. We all do what we can to try to stop it, but WP:DENY hasn't been exhausted yet. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

  If NYB is correct that "Over the weekend, one of Kumioko's throwaway accounts vandalized a BLP" then fine, but is there a reason we can't see the evidence of that? That could possibly be a reason for an ISP report if that's the case (though, even then, I think I'd need evidence of repeated behavour of that type). Black Kite (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

  I agree. And if a threat to an employer needs to be made, then the Arbitration Committee as a whole should do it, not some random admin. Even if that random admin is an Arb. Maybe that is the problem, confusing rights and responsibilities between his two roles. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

  If the IP(Kumioko, who I haven't the foggiest who that is) hasn't made violations worthy of being reported to their ISP, that's a different story. The abuse@whatever.com would just laugh at someone writing to them about some annoying person. There would have to be clear abusive behavior for a report to even be filed, and most abuse@ admins don't really care about childish rants. Dave Dial (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

  That's my point, really. There's a huge difference between someone ranting random nonsense on talk and WP-space pages, and vandalising BLPs. Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

  Right. But on the other hand, I have tried writing to the abuse@ to get annoying IPs that refused to abide by website TOS to stop disrupting said websites. If one is responsible to ensure that disruptions are limited, taking certain steps is just SOP. Whether it results in curtailing the disruptions or not. I just don't see some of the 'outrage' here as justified. A warning is not a legal threat, in any way. And from the quotes Brad lists above, why should anyone believe the editor is not going to go through with their threats? In any case, if the editor is so sure there is some plot or abuse by others, there are avenues to address them. Threatening to be the most prolific vandal Wikipedia has ever seen is not one I would suggest. Dave Dial (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Right; there is a huge difference. A persistent stalker who keeps sending harrassing messages to people over a period of months is frankly someone we should be more concerned about than someone who engages in a bit of childish vandalism in article-space. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

  Well, now there's a new issue. I don't see any evidence of actual harrasment above (I could be wrong), merely a lot of rather puerile attention-seeking. But as far as I was mentioning the ISP reports, we were talking about editors with years of vandalism - and everything other avenue tried first - before the ISP report was invoked. Black Kite (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

  "He has repeatedly misused the Echo feature by deliberately pinging dozens of arbitrators, functionaries, administrators and other editors for the purpose of harassing them." Persistent "attention-seeking" – puerile or not – in the face of clear requests to desist is harrassment. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• This seems to me like a classic case of he who did not get what he wanted off in the corner throwing a temper tantrum to try to draw attention, and thus seems like a classic case of WP:DENY. Revert and ignore, refuse to engage in dialogue, and eventually, he will probably go away. However, by having extensive threaded discussions here, or on ANI, or AN, or any other noticeboard, or on any arbitrator's talk page, we give him what he wants - attention. Therefore, I repeat, revert and ignore. Go Phightins! 19:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

That depends. Who really wants to get in a post, revert, repost, revert, repost, revert, repost, revert, repost, revert. . . until that Sock is blocked cycle? Good faith users of any level of permissions are not really here for that kind of time sink -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, make that revert, block, ignore. Yeah it's a game of whack-a-sock, but if we do it with as little drama and discussion as possible, ultimately Kumioko will find another way to waste his time. Go Phightins! 22:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems simple but then why has this gone on? Are the admin who are needed to make those timely blocks just too neglectful of their duties, or is the apparent obsession just too strong? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Many here seem to say that they don't think an ISP was correct. perhaps we should draft policy controlling such things.--75* 20:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• NewYorkBrad gives a useful overview of Kuimoko's activities here and what a real pain he is. But the fact is that he's the equivalent of the pub bore who speaks too loud and eventually gets barred, that's all. What's he not doing is glassing people or puking down your missus' cleavage sort things, and there's no call to dial 999 here. I do think my UKIP analogy rather appropiate.

Really we need two things 1 an enquiry into admin powers and Arbcom policy concerning ISP abuse reports (people who say anyone can file abuse claims are missing the point, they wouldn't have the ISP address to make the complaint) 2 we need to enquire into whether AGK can safely be entrusted with these permissions (notably checkuser rights). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

ummm... wasn't #2 decided by the ARBCOM elections? and for #1, if it's an IP editor, anyone can find their IP, it's not hard. it's really just a matter of googling. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 22:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

ummmback ... #2 a lot of opposition at AGK's election I see, far from a shoe-in, and are you saying once elected at Arbcom you are beyond scrutiny in all you do? #1 it's not clear to me what the circumstances are. Usually editing on his account I gather. Failed RfA, far from a hit-and -run IP troll thus. Of course it often happens that you can locate an IP for an account. Anyone willing to put in the footwork can find out the IP I post on because I can't maintain an auto login and frequently forget to sign in (I just don't notice what I agree is a fairly prominent caution). Something of the sort happened to an admin recently who became controversial and was discovered in the other place to be posting from an official website similar to the one we are dealing with here. But if that indeed was the basis of AGK's ferreting, then don't you think it still poses other equally worrying questions (surely I don't need to spell them out?). AGK is culpable here. That was a threat and it needs to examined. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

AGK's conduct is outrageous, and Wikipedia must take a strong stand against harassing threats of this sort. We are far, far too indulgent towards bullies. Kumioko complains loudly about admin abuse, and we prove his points for him by overreacting and threatening him. I suggest a solution to the problem that might actually work, as opposed to everything else I'm seeing: offer an olive branch and work out a reasonable solution with the guy so he can come back and we can all focus on writing content. Everyking (talk) 00:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

as much as I prefer to assume good faith, I think it's a bit too late for an olive branch. he was BANNED by the community. I see his email as a warning, more of a courtesy than anything. AGK could have just gone and sent a mail to his ISP, without a direct warning. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 01:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Could AGK "just have gone"? Really? What it goes to here, is the capacity in which he would have went if he had gone. Sure Kumioko was banned (so I gather) but it was for being a dick, for not being a pukka club member, and not for (say) trolling admins accusing them of being kiddy-fiddlers and the like (or for that matter issuing legal threats). There is a difference, is there not? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

really? WP:BURO] anyhow, the initial banning is not the issue here, the issues is with what occurred and is occurring after he got banned. iot's no different than any other long-term vandal. if someone pulled the same crap on any other site, there wouldn't even be discussion of such a thing, the ISP would be messaged. why should wikipedia be that different? it's not a legal threat at all, it has nothing to do with the legal system. in absence of a policy governing it, and as an administrator of wikipedit, he he felt that he needed to use that level of intervention. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 04:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Can't see how WP:BURO relates here. Is there a policy about reporting abuse to an ISP in the first place? I'll let you have the last word here, Aunva. But 1 that email from AGK was a threat 2 if it's the case, as avowed in the other place and as indeed the email's wording suggests, that in fact Kumioko normally edited from non-DOD addresses at home, then the whole issue plainly becomes a very serious matter indeed. Thank you for your remarks. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Have you even tried what you are saying someone other than you should do? Have you reached out to him to work out a reasonable solution to reverse his ban or is this just empty rhetoric? Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone notified Kumioko of this thread? —Neotarf (talk) 06:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

He is well aware of it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

And is AGK not well aware of it? Yet, AGK was given the courtesy of formal notification and the right to defend themself from accusations of malfeasance. As is proper. Courtesy doesn't cost anything, and should be extended to admins and non-admins alike, no matter what you think of them personally. (And no, I don't have an easy answer to your "who has a better idea" question). —Neotarf (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe we have an obligation to notify a banned user that they are the subject of a discussion. In fact, such a notification might well be viewed as thumbing one's nose at them.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The situation is a little close to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jim62sch#Threats although both users were in good standing at that time. However FT2 got into hot water for threatening another editor offwiki via threats. This situation is similar. 129.9.104.11 (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• • That is indeed an interesting read. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • There is also some similarity to this one. I don't know that Kumioko has ever revealed his employer on-wiki. —Neotarf (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I will reply to the first question, asking for some alternative action. If the core of the problem is that it may be needed to notify his ISP, but his ISP is also the place where this man works, then none of us Wikipedia users should do that. Either if common editors, admins or arbcom members, we all may lack the knowledge needed to adress a situation like this. The best way to act then is to contact the lawyers of the Foundation and let them talk to the ISP, as they will surely know perfectly well how to write a request that minimizes any potential legal problem for the man while acting upon the editor.

And perhaps I will something that may have already been tried, but if the problem is with a sock puppets master, then block not just his account but also the IP from where he had made the accounts. You did so, and he repeated the process in the IP of his workplace? Block that one as well. If it is public, and several unrelated people logs from it, block the IP for registering accounts and all his accounts, and spare the accounts of unrelated users (sock puppet investigations surely know how to set them apart). Yes, he may then try to find some other place to register accounts, get them blocked, go somewhere else... and the game of the cat and the mice will cease when he is eventually tired and finds that seeking unused sources of internet and going through the registering forms would no longer be worth the effort; specially if he finds something else to do in his spare time. Cambalachero (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's try to find a way back

Mr Wales, perhaps you could find it in your heart to wipe the slate clean and start over with Kumioko? There's been a tremendous amount of bad blood over this situation. He was a very good editor before the collapse. Good luck. Hell might be other people (talk) 04:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not really up to Jimbo. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It was a community ban, not ArbCom. [8] —Neotarf (talk) 11:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Still not up to Jimbo, but the community then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

As Cas Liber points out, it is not up to Jimbo but to the community. As a member of the community, I'd like to see the slate wiped clean and start over. However, I think there should be some period, say six months, of no socking before I would support a return. I fear I'm in the minority, but I'd like to see him back.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Finding a way back is entirely up to Kumioko at this point, not the community. 150+ socks dedicated to harassing numerous editors isn't the way. Resolute 16:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Casliber >He was a very good editor before the collapse.

For some values of "good". If one takes the time and trouble (large helpings of both) to review the history of his contributions, you'll see:

• Lot's of volume of edits (and, IMO, a focus on his edit count that still continues as something that made him particularly deserving)
• A history of disputes, including:

1. Regarding a project, where things did not go the way he wanted - this was the start of his clear anger at WP
2. Multiple RFAs, with his browbeating of others getting worse and worse - he's stated on an external site (paraphrasing) "I'd probably still be active on WP if I had been made an admin"
3. Incredibly disruptive behavior, including negative comments in multiple forums, block evasion, and using IPs to post (paraphrasing) "Oh well, expect to be screwed over by admins" on the talk pages of new users who'd gotten in hot water (and, contrary to his repeated assertions that "he's not trying to hide who he is when he block evades" those posts did not identify himself as the disgruntled, blocked user that he is, but rather let those users assume he was just some random fellow oppressed editor. He also tried to get additional privs after being blocked here, using a sock account, trying to obscure who he was - and only came out in the open when his evasion about who he was led to his request being denied.

Yet he describes his position as being (paraphrasing) "persecuted by a small cabal of users and involved admins" and a "critic silenced for speaking out against Arbcom and admin abuse". But his block was for the last point I mentioned, and his overall disruptive behavior. Most distressing is his demonstrated dishonesty. Again, read the foregoing, and look through his (and his many socks' and IPsocks') contributions and you'll see:

• His mischaracterization of his agenda
• His mischaracterization of how and why he was blocked
• Numerous promises made and broken (See his RFAs, e.g, I won't file another RFA, if I fail this RFA I'll do x, and then he does not, etc.)
• His mischaracterization of how he's used socks and IPsocks (in particular, that he's "not hidden who he was" and that he is merely "airing legitimate critique".

Quite simply, he can't be trusted. He needs to go away and come back in 6 months of no editing and no disruption, or he could patiently edit under a new identity and behave. He won't do the latter, however, as he is both impatient and feels he is entitled to more, more, more, now, now, now. JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It is, I think, fair for him to say that he has not hidden who he is. He has almost always signed his posts. He claimed on my talk page that an edit filter had been set up to stop him signing his name "Lol, they keep trying to make it so my name cannot even be spoken on this site." Despite this he still signed with the abbreviation "Kumi". I have not looked into his complaints of admin abuse, or in detail at his ban discussion, I am fairly certain that, right or wrong, they will not be groundless. Offering a return to editing without dealing with those issues would be, I think futile. Conversely having the situation where arbitrators are saying "Do as we tell you, or we will take certain actions" where it appears those actions could lead to criminal charges if Dennis Brown is correct is also not sustainable. (The editor who was tagging random newbies accounts with anti-Kumioko personal attacks seems to have been reined in, thankfully.)

I would be willing to work with, for example, Dennis Brown and Kumioko to try to find a way forward.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC).

My concern is that this opens a Pandora's Box, whereby any admin can threaten the job of an editor. It might not have been AGK's intention, but I can't help but to read this as a threat. I've no previous issue with AGK, he's always seemed like a stand up guy, so it isn't personal. Because the email does look like a threat, it would be hypocritical for me not to speak up just because I'm a fellow admin, or just because he is an Arb. To me, the problem isn't about Kumioko at all, it could have been any other person receiving that email. Frankly, Kumioko isn't our worst sock problem, not by a mile. I see no reason to treat Kumioko differently than the others. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Why would they need to be an admin to do so? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: A way back to solve at least some of this

Simple: AGK resigns from his post on ArbCom.

• Support: Regardless of Kumioko's behavior, AGK's behavior can not be accepted. Threatening one's real world job is flatly unacceptable. That AGK not only does not understand this to be an error but feels he was doing Kumioko a favor (last few sentences) shows a serious lack of judgment. It is not enough to say he wasn't acting as part of ArbCom. That's akin to Rod Blagojevich trying to get off his charges by saying he wasn't acting as governor. Admins don't get special passes when they screw up by saying they weren't acting as admins. Neither should ArbCom. AGK's actions cast a pall over the entire editor community. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support strongly. This is a good starting point. Everyking (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support We do not support off-wiki threats on other editors. KonveyorBelt 01:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• This isn't a vote or witchhunt. I do think that policy violations happened but I'm not quite ready to stop assuming good faith. I haven't seen any evidence that AGK is an evil person, just that a serious mistake was made and needs addressing. I think we are more likely to find that solution if we don't take up torches and pitchforks here. It isn't about punishment or justice, it is about equity and fairness, responsibility and accountability. I haven't been impressed with the responses (and lack of) so far, but we need to use the system in place to address the concerns. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think he is an evil person either. He has, however, consistently, over the years, chosen to take far too strong action in response to issues, and justifies it with his "specialized knowledge". He blocked a /16 to stop Br'er Rabbit (who was never really a problem) - and denied doing so. He wiped the archive of Kumioko's sock investigations, and edit warred to keep it blank - again citing his "superior knowledge" as the reason. It is said he created an edit filter to stop Kumioko signing his posts - again he denied it, but external evidence seems to indicate that it is true. So we know that as well as doing these rather extreme acts against editors who are no more than minor problems if that, he has a habit of denying that he did them. This is not the level of integrity we expect from an administrator, let alone an arbitrator. His position here is unsustainable. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC).
    

• Wait a minute. Do we have consensus that it is inappropriate for admins or Arbs to use the authority of their office, or privileged information such as checkuser data or private communications to ArbCom, to back up abuse reports? Having this consensus that the underlying act of actually making the report is wrong - that's worth a thousand times more than any decision about AGK. We're supposed to consider the edit, not the editor, and the same should be true here. I should add that if someone is pushing an idea where an admin or arbcom as a whole can send abuse reports to employers knowing that people can and will be fired, but it is wrong for them to warn that could happen... that's just lunatic. It has to be one way or the other. Wnt (talk) 03:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
• This is just brilliant. Lesson learned here is that if you are dealing with abusive sockmasters, you're better off just filing the reports silently and without warning. Resolute 04:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support. The email was self-evidently not a plea but a threat and it's plain he either imagined he was acting on behalf of ArbCom in good faith or deliberately sought to indicate he was. In either case his position on ArbCom is indefensible and he should resign. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 06:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
• Pathetic proposal The only mistake AGK made was trying to reason with the l33t haxor who has discovered wifi and proxies—a simple abuse report would have been all that was warranted. Johnuniq (talk) 10:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Moratorium

I think this would be a good time for us to pause this thread, to stop criticizing or commenting on Kumioko, and see what happens next.

Kumioko's objective over the past couple of months has been to call attention to what he considers abuses by administrators (including arbitrators) on this project. Clearly he has succeeded in drawing attention to the fact that he is dissatisfied and to some reasons why.

Kumioko has e-mailed me complaining that he has been criticized on this page and can't respond here. As a courtesy to him, I point out that Kumioko has responded to the threads on this page in his postings on Wikipediocracy. Anyone interested can find those posts there in the top two threads in the "Governance" subforum. While I obviously disagree with a lot of what Kumioko has written there (not least about myself), anyone interested in his side of the story can read his posts and consider what he has to say.

Let's stop talking about Kumioko now and perhaps the overall situation will cool down. Regards to all, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

As Dennis indicates above, this thread is not about Kumioko, though making progress there would be good. It's about AGK. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC).

I have brought this to the attention of the Arbitration Committee by email and at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#URGENT: Real life threats. Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jim62sch#Harassment and threats "Any uninvolved administrator may address any incident of harassment or threats in accordance with applicable policy." All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC).

Withdrawal of one allegation, with apology

Kumioko has denied my statement above that over the weekend, one of his accounts vandalized a BLP. This led me to checkuser that account. It appears that that account was an imposter. I therefore withdraw that allegation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

For those of you not following the parallel drama thread on Wikipediocracy, with respect to allegations of vandalism Kumioko has stated, "aside from a few threats to do so, I do not beleive I have vandalized anything." He was a hugely productive editor (#28 on the list of total edits, 318,300) who is pissed off and unhappy and acting out. I'm not quite sure what the solution is, but the current situation is definitely not working for anybody, either him or Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 03:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's largely the editor's own fault that it has become so difficult to distinguish the large amount of disruptive editing that they actually have engaged in, from the also fairly large amount of disruptive editing that they only threatened to engage in. The volume of threats is rather large and rather shrill. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

BLP vandalism you say? How about this one then: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Veysel_Ero%C4%9Flu&diff=597990875&oldid=583752853 —Xezbeth (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

In fact, it would be nice to know if these sockpuppets were really him or just imposters. I doubt they were all checkusered. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Not him. Kumioko's writing style is fairly recognizable. I doubt he could ever be very successful at socking (sorry, Kumioko). —Neotarf (talk) 08:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This one is a bit clearer first the BLP [9] (8 in total from this IP) and then a post making the identity very clear [10].--Salix alba (talk): 09:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts from Ivor Catt

Moved from Talk:Jimmy Wales. I believe this to be a comment from Ivor Catt himself. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday I had a new idea. Any Wikipedia page about an individual, for instance on "Ivor Catt", should begin with an unremovabler sentence; "Ivor Catt comments" followed by a hyperlink to Ivor Catt's website. This will enable the individual to comment on what is being said about him at length, without cluttering up the original document, and without being open to the charge of being egotistical.

This is a subset of the more general point, called "Riposte", which I came up with 15 years ago which has been ignored. The www is a new kind of medium (or could be), since all previous media comprise monologue. In principle, because of hyperlink, the www can be dialogue. For 15 years my websites say I guarantee that anyone who disagrees with anything on my website is guaranteed a hyperlink designated [R] to where he can contradict my statement. Sadly, only two people have taken up my guarantee, and the key idea has been ignored. The final objective is that any government statement can be contradicted by the use of a single letter [R], which will hyperlink to the contradiction. That facility will greatly enhance democracy. Ivor Catt www.ivorcatt.co.uk 13 May 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.43.94 (talk) 09:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Far too sensible to gain any traction here. Eric Corbett 20:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it is worth pursuing. Not everyone has a website, so I would go further; if they want to respond, and do not have a website, we'll provide a space that only they can edit.I have a feeling it will mainly be used by sales websites as advertising, so we'd have to decide whether that is collateral damage, or can be limited, but worth discussing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

It does seem like a reasonable request (granted it took me a while to understand what he was actually getting at). I would suggest limiting it to BLPs, but I would think that hosting it here would be the way to go. Not sure how it would be managed though, that may be difficult. How would someone prove that it is actually them that is doing the commenting? --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• The WMF are far too busy cooking up bad ideas to spring on us without warning, so I doubt they'd code this for you. Nice idea, though. AGK [•] 21:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd guess the tough part here is administering this. If even one person falls victim to someone spoofing their identity and claiming the right to have a phony site linked, Wikipedia gets keelhauled, possibly sued. So how can WMF verify identity with enough certainty to impose this top down as "uneditable"? The current method - having an infobox or External Links section with the subject's site usually displayed - is less ironclad, but lacks pretensions. Wnt (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

What if the WMF contacts the Living Person off-wiki to ensure that it's actually them? _{This could also be used to verify the identity of academics who want to contribute to Wikipedia, I know there's been various issues with that in the past.} Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 01:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Nice idea, but we have rather a lot of BLPs. Currently 1,102,107. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC).

My real concern is that you're like as not talking to Bobby Singer on the phone. Even if he sends you a photocopy of his ID card, it's a copy of a photoshopped copy of the card. It's not easy to really identify someone remotely, and the process usually relies almost entirely on the threat of legal action for financial fraud rather than being truly unhackable. Wnt (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you should bring this up at the Village Pump. I don't think there should be an unremovable sentence on the article but there could be a subpage (like Ivor Catt/Riposte) that could allow a living person to make a statement, as long as it wasn't promotional or sales-oriented ("Buy my book!"). I don't know whether these pages would need some level of page protection.

What I'd be more concerned about though is that we have a limited pool of active editors and this would be an enormous project to take on if it was going to be truly integrated with the entire encyclopedia. It could bring in more editors but I think the current group of very active editors (around 3,000? See stats) is stretched pretty thin. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

There might well be issues involved in hosting a 'riposte' page - it would have to be subject to restrictions on what could be posted there, for reasons of legal liability. I suspect that the WMF might well see this as unduly problematic, given that hosting what amounts to personal commentary is well outside the scope of of WMF's stated objectives. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Having issues is pretty much guaranteed. Woo-promoters would have a Wikipedia-hosted platform to publicize their views. Those involved in feuds would commit WP:BLP violations. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

If they have reliable sources, there is a page where they can "riposte" it is called the talk page. (Or of course, any suitable community page.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC).

Not just that, Rich, but also, in every case I can think of where an individual, company, or other entity has a recognised website of their own, that website is the first link under "External links", regardless of how inane, opinionated, offensive, copyright-infringing or otherwise problematic it may be. I have never even heard of someone arguing that should not happen. Granted, some people may be so important that ripostes to material on Wikipedia is not something that deserves space on their own website, but it certainly gives them the opportunity. Readers know where to find the official voice and stance of individuals about themselves, because we provide a fairly prominent link to that place. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe all that is needed is that we modify the External links guideline to allow for Riposte-like links; and have a Riposte field in BLP or company infoboxes. This way, the persons involved could have a dedicated space at their official websites without having to clutter their main page. Diego (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Not necessary, and likely to be harmful. This approach has the twin disadvantages of a) letting us be used as a marketing outlet for our article subjects (even more so than we are now); and b) implying that we need not take as much care with our articles, because there's a 'response' space or link. One does not achieve or improve the neutrality of our coverage of a topic by presenting a neutral article and prominently linking to a whitewashed, self-serving, one-sided, promotional puff piece. I quote Okrent's law: "The pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes something is true." When we direct people to outside content, we have at least a minimal editorial obligation to consider the quality of that content. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Good point Demiurge. Moreover if they have any technical ability, or the ability to access it, they can look at the referrer field, and, for visitors from Wikipedia, plaster "Don't believe what you read on Wikipedia" all over their home page, if they so desire. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC).

Looking for an opinion on scope of Wikipedia's coverage

After being on Wikipedia for eight years, I could not help, but notice that some topics have an inherent bias against inclusion despite passing WP:GNG. I was wondering if you feel that this encyclopedia was meant to be completely unbiased in coverage and should coverage all notable subjects, or are there topics you feel are unencyclopedic and should have higher GNG requirements that the standard? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I would be interested to know which topics have an inherent bias against them. Even your impressions would be interesting. I take it you are referring to AfD (Prod/CSD) rather than the preference for inclusion displayed by article creation. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC).

I find your question confusing. Can you mention some examples of these "topics" that have an inherent bias? This question is a little too abstract to know how to respond to it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I just want to echo others in their request for more details or examples. In principle, I think we should be unbiased in coverage and should cover all notable subjects. But even saying that is too simplistic as it introduces all sorts of complex problems. Musicians, actors, and sports personalities all receive dramatically more popular press than academics, judges, and business people so simplistic models of what counts as notable tend to fail. Like the others who have commented so far, I think your impressions of bias would be interesting for us to chew on. I also think it would be interesting for someone who is clever with scripts to analyze past AfD results on some kind of per-category basis to look for interesting anomalies. (A high ratio of nominations to deletions could be interpreted multiple ways depending on the circumstances, of course. Some things probably get deleted a lot because they are popular fancruft that random newbies start. Other things may get deleted for more deep seated reasons of bias, for example topics that are less known or less interesting to our skewed demographic of editors.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me, I think you have stated many issues I've noticed perfectly. There is a tremendous bias as to what we consider encyclopedic. As an inclusionist, I think, when in question keep and improve, however I see the opposite effect. Many editors appear intent on building a Wiki resume based on deletions with no interest in finding sources, such is the case in the AfD for No call, no show. An example of a topic where bias is inherent is fringe theories, and this is nowhere near the most oppressed topic. The current AfD I am involved in, UFO sightings in outer space (considered the most reliable group of sightings by academics) shows pure IDONTLIKEIT votes despite tons of academic sources documenting such events. The range of bias is extensive, Dieselpunk, was deleted 5 times and was finally restore on it's sixth AfD with minimal improvements, because as I believe, it was always encyclopedic. When the same group of editors repeatedly engage in the same AfD, we are essentially holding a kangaroo trial and this is prevalent throughout Wikipedia. There is one particular topic, which has been systematically dismantled in the past few months, because we refused to accept in topic sources as reliable and consequently the inclusion criteria has been set well higher than that of standard GNG. It is important that every topic has established sources which we accept to be at least partially reliable, especially when the topic receives less coverage in mainstream media. Poker and video game related articles have done an excellent job in establishing this and should set such a precedence to all genres.

Per DGG, "we cover the world as people see it" even the idiocy, Wikipedia receives half a billion unique visitors per month, only 120,000 are active editors, of the 120,000, many are here to work on specific articles and leave as quickly as they surface. So, if I am correct when taking into consideration users with special permissions, sysops, reviewers, etc. we are looking at about 10,000 consistent editors who can control the flow of information to the rest of the world. In my opinion, these numbers are not high enough and most editors are American and statistics suggest possible bias as to what is accepted here, may exist. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 14:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I generally agree with Valoem. I just want to add that in the years Wikipedia has seen a slow but definite shift in mindset, from being a young, bubbling "open source" project, with a groundbreaking attitude, to becoming a more and more conservative (in the academic sense, not political) behemoth. This shift has both good and bad consequences. The good is that now we value accuracy and sourcing much, much more than in the past, and as a result WP is overall more and more reliable. The bad is that we are more and more entrenched in making WP look like past reference works, instead of embracing the potential and freedom that the electronic media allow us; and that higher standards make editing much more difficult for new editors. While many of the early editors were in front of basically a blank sheet of paper with few hard and fast rules, now we are a Byzantine bureaucracy where a few editors control the extent of what is deemed "encyclopedic" and what not.

I would say that in general the overall spirit of a guideline like WP:GNG makes sense inasmuch it asks us that we need to meet minimum conditions so that we are able to write an article. Without secondary RS, we cannot write a reliable article. So GNG, in its original sense, is not much about what we should put in the 'pedia, but more about what we can put in. That is what should guide us: do we have something to rely on for our writing? If yes, we should not have fear of letting it live. Every other consideration is biased. No matter how trivial and bizarre and weird a subject is, it is still a piece of structured knowledge that could benefit someone, one day. It's about collecting the whole of human culture, not only what we, here and now, from our narrow point of view, find noteworthy.

I feel this has also consequences in terms of our current editors drain. We should make a large scale effort to simplify and streamline all the baroque ruleset that has encrusted through the years, and, while keeping high the accuracy requirements, bring some of the early spirit of WP back. --cyclopia^speak! 15:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It is no longer correct to say that the majority of edits or views to even the English Wikipedia come from the US (unless things have gone backwards) this changed round about 2012, IIRC. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC).

Thanks for the update I got that information from an article in 2010. What is true though is that many articles covered in non-English sources are nominated for deletion still without cite checking foreign sources. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Valoem's and cyclopia analysis. I've long suspected that part of the problem lies in the way content policies have been codified. WP:GNG and WP:RS have been written with the needs of western audiences, and thinking about the level of coverage that western media provide. Proof of that is that we have long established practice of outcomes for keeping articles that are exceptions to the rules, as they don't fully comply with those policies (such as geographic places and schools) but are nevertheless kept because of their interest to the dominant group as a global topic; but for articles of dubious coverage that are of interest to other cultures (Bollywood films and celebrities come to mind, as well as buildings from countries without a thorough online land registry), the full strength of those policies is enforced even when some level of verifiable sources is available.

In order to achieve the original levels of participation, growth and user retention, I believe what's missing is some kind of "beta" space where the rules were not so strict, and article candidates were allowed to grow more slowly without risking deletion, benefiting from multiple collaborators extended in time. AfD should have worked for that, but it is too centered on a single editor building the article in one sitting; and I had high hopes that the new Draft space could fulfill that role, but it still suffers too much from inertia imposed by the community bureaucratic monster.

Now I don't advocate a return to the time of no editorial processes and low quality of content - at least not in the main space. However, a fork of some kind that was clearly marked as unofficial, and being limited to the bare minimum of protective measures (BLPs, vandalism, COPYVIO and the most egregious SPAM) would benefit those people who want to explore the possibilities and capture knowledge from those other cultures, without the baggage of the most subtle aspects of current policy - which, as I said, have been fine-tuned to the necessities and liking of educated netizens from the 2000s. This separate space could develop a new set of rules and a new, young community of members, from the areas of the world that the WMF is targeting. Diego (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow, believe or not I made just recently made that proposal here. Wikiarchive :) Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't recall an example of an actual commercial Bollywood film being deleted though articles about unreviewed works by total beginner "directors" are often deleted regardless of nationality. As an active AdD participant, I repeatedly emphasize that this is the English language encyclopedia of the entire world, not the encyclopedia of the English speaking world. And there are reliable newspapers, magazines, books and websites published in almost every country, except the handful of the most unstable. "Everyone knows about it in Dacca (or Dakar)" is no more of a claim of notability than saying that everyone in Sacramento (or Glasgow) knows about it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@Valoem:: Oh, I have no doubt that there must be other people discussing these ideas; they are similar to the perennial proposal to have a soft delete process or trash space with access to the history of non-problematic articles, which has always made sense and has never achieved consensus. Thanks for the link, btw. It has given me some new insights into what kinds of deleted content are the most valuable, and that there's a major error in treating all of it in the same way.

My proposal is not so much inspired in principle but in pragmatism, taking inspiration in how software projects evolve. In order to release new versions, they require freezing a stable version and creating a new branch where unstable and low-quality edits are composed to build new areas of functionality. Wikipedia has similarly reached the stable state, but by not further allowing it to break, we're at the same time stiffling any potential to grow.

@Cullen328:: The whole point of an alternate venue is that notability shouldn't be a hard requirement in such alternate space. Knowledge is accumulated in small pieces, and we could gain a lot from compiling verifiable facts from reliable sources that aren't a good fit for any current article. The WP:PRESERVE policy, which is nearly defunct now, could shine again and accomplish its process of slow improvement, in a region away from the spotlight where it wouldn't put us at much risk. Diego (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer a simpler approach than opening a novel namespace. Simply put, deletionists want a stiff encyclopedia with few entries which are clearly notable and well polished. Inclusionists are more of a "this is a work in progress", horizontal approach, where basically if it can be sourced, it's good to come in. What I would do is simply to assess pages within WP. We already have GA and FAs. We used to have Start,A,B etc. class articles. Whatever. The point is: instead of making it a binary distinction "this goes in ,this goes not", we take most stuff in, but we also assess roughly article notability and quality and give it to the readers. They then decide what they want to read, and are appropriately warned. Instead of bringing articles with few secondary sources to AFD, we can just stick "Warning: This article relies primarily or only on primary sources" or "Warning: This article relies mostly on unreliable sources such as blogs and forums". Readers can then proceed at their own risk. It could also be decided to make such articles not necessarily accessible by default on search, with the reader that can choose what part of WP they want to access. --cyclopia^speak! 17:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer that as well, but there's a generalized sentiment that anything without some "trascendental" nature should be excised from the project and buried under a strict no-access regime; I think doing this provides some people with some sense of cleanliness or completion. This is why it makes sense to have a separate space that these people won't find in their day-to-day work.

Moreover, it's the only way that we could have less stringent rules - anything in main space is evaluated to the letter of law and WP:Ignore All Rules is seen as an exception, instead of the "widely accepted standard that all editors must normally follow" as it should be.

But maybe you're right, and simply creating filters and leaving out by default everything unassessed or below C-class quality would be enough to satisfy people at all sides of the scale. Diego (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, I think you might mention many of the delete votes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFO sightings in outer space (3rd nomination) were reacting to this version of the article, which leaned so heavily toward dubious fringe rumors from unreliable fringe sources it was difficult to tell if they were even notable. Also, some "academic sources documenting such events" in the earlier version included stuff like Journal of Scientific Exploration, Journal of UFO Studies, and New Frontiers in Science [11]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

That is an exemplary example of the problem. Despite seeing multiple solid sources editors have voted delete because there were issues with a few sources. It's a clean up AfD, which is not what an AfD is. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

10,000 committed editors and 120,000 intermittent editors and 4,514,696 english language articles. Between 40 and 400 articles for each editor to maintain and improve. CONCLUSION: we need to widen the scope so we can get more articles. Um...yeah... SteveBaker (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@SteveBaker: Just to let you know this has nothing to do with my original question. The topic has since diverged, my question was how to deal with inherent bias against articles which just so happens to be discouraging to all editors, not just the new and whether this bias was an original factor, intended from the beginning? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Wait, so your complaint is about specific editors who were biased against specific articles? It sounds like WP:AN/I is the appropriate venue for that kind of complaint. I don't see this as a case for loosening of notability restrictions. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The idea is to widen the scope so we can get more editors. Diego (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Because it is preferable to sacrifice quality of articles in exchange for quantity of editors. jps (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV: It's a mathematical assumption that higher quantity of editors leads to higher quality of articles. While I believe namespace storage is feasible, it simply will not work on Wikipedia. WMF, instead, should open a different wiki entirely for storage presumably named WikiArchives, which all viewers are aware of possible unreliability. This archive cannot be searched through any search engine to prevent promotionalism and the only requirements for listing is NPOV, non-promotional, and verifiability. We edit for the masses not for ourselves. I think we are discouraging new editors because we have not been open enough regarding education on editing and deleting their work has not helped either.

Getting back on topic though, I came here wondering if there was any topic Jimbo feels is unencyclopedic and should have higher requirements for listing, I haven't mentioned the topic in question as of yet, but it is being dismantled despite meeting GNG. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV: The flaw in that argument is that if you need a wider tolerance of article subject in order to attract new editors then it's certain those new editors would want to work on the new articles. Those people won't immediately start to edit our present "core" set of articles. More likely, the core group of editors that we have now will feel obligated to spend time on those newer peripheral articles - and that will further dilute the "core" editor pool working on the present set of "core" articles. The gamble is: "Will the hypothetical newly-attracted editors 'convert' to wanting to work on core articles faster than our existing 'core' editors feel obligated to fix problems in the newly expanded article pool?" I think the answer to that is an obvious big, fat, no! These newly created articles will have been created by newbies - and they'll be on sketchier subjects than we currently allow - that's guaranteed to soak up mountains of time from experienced core editors who are struggling hard to maintain the quality of the encyclopedia as a whole. I could easily see that pushing us into a death-spiral from which we'd never recover. SteveBaker (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the answer to that is an obvious big, fat, no! - I think the answer is an obvious big, fat yes! What you are speaking of is actually how most of most senior editors actually got drawn to Wikipedia, in the old wild days. Imagine it as a giant sandbox. It allows people to contribute, to get an idea of how the wiki process etc. works, and to get involved. And then they can feel more comfortable dipping into the toes of the more bureaucratic, controlled, complex environment of "proper" WP. I think many of them will "convert" easily. Now instead we have created a huge, steep barrier of bureaucracy and checks to new editors, and it is not a surprise editors are decreasing in numbers.--cyclopia^speak! 01:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Jews and Communism

You will likely recall a discussion here, not long ago, about the notorious page Jews and Communism. At that time, you said you would look into the matter, but it appears the press of other matters prevented that. The page is now at AfD for the second time [12], and it appears likely that this embarrassment will at last be removed.

There remains the very serious question: how did a handful of zealous editors insert and support a patently anti-Semitic canard in Wikipedia, maintaining it for three months through the extensive discussion on your talk page, a previous AfD, two trips to AN/I, and thousands upon thousands of words of acerbic talk page discussion? In my opinion, this strikes to the core of Wikipedia: if a small group of skilled editors can maintain a conspicuous anti-Semitic propaganda page, what cannot be inserted? And if so, who will support or trust Wikipedia?

I have written further comments at AN: [13]. If you have an opinion on this matter, I think this is an ideal time to express it. I sincerely believe this crisis to be a serious threat to the future of the project. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I was actually going to raise the issue myself, as I was the one who brought it here originally. When I read the article for the first time, I s--t a brick and said to myself "This just can't be. How did this garbage get into Wikipedia?" It read like a propaganda screed. It turns out that indeed much of it was originally copied from an anti-Semitic website, and the article itself was copied over to Metapedia. But I was going to raise the issue differently than Mark is, as an example of the Wikipedia processes working. It did take a bit of prodding, but they do seem to be working, and the article seems to be heading for a SNOW deletion. Frankly, being the superstitious sort, I was going to wait until it was actually deleted before coming here to talk about it. Overall, this article gives me a good feeling about Wikipedia. But yes, Mark is right, some reflection is warranted about how it got here and how the system failed to immediately pick up on it. I guess the reason is that the system is us. Coretheapple (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Largely agree with most of the sentiments above from MarkBernstein and Coretheapple. What gives me pause for thought is how the first deletion discussion in March was no consensus, then the current deletion discussion in May is emphatically delete. Are we that fickle as a community? Did the article change? Did the original deletion not get proposed correctly? NickCT (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in the first one, but the second one had a much larger cross-section of the community participating, because of exposure on ANI and here, and more importantly it was determined that much of the original article was lifted from an anti-Semitic website. In the midst of this revelation, the primary supporter of the article abruptly changed his mind from "strong support" to "delete." You really have to go to an old Perry Mason tv show to find such an abrupt turnaround. After that, it was just WP:SNOWfall thereafter, and the article is currently blanked by an admin as plagiarism. Also, the first closing was controversial, as a majority of editors favored deletion, and it was a non-admistrative closure. But a much closer plurality, and certainly not a landslide of disgust and revulsion as we are currently seeing. Coretheapple (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: - re " majority of editors favored deletion" - It was a pretty slim majority though, huh? Well, I guess we managed to arrive at the right decision in the end. Perhaps that's the silver lining. NickCT (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

"...and it was a non-admistrative closure." ? AfD #1 was closed by RoySmith who may be a bit disconcerted to learn that he has somehow misplaced his admin bit. Tarc (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I stand corrected. Another reason to not feel great about Wikipedia admins, I guess. Coretheapple (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I have given this a good deal of thought, and I believe the original AfD was wrongly decided. The original nomination was cast strictly in terms of Wikipedia policy (NPOV fork), which is often a prudent course; this allowed the article's anti-Semitic slant to be viewed as a muddled content dispute and the 2:1 sentiment in favor of deletion to be viewed as a he-said she-said content dispute.

I took considerable care in writing the second AfD to present both the clear and narrow policy issues (WP:ATTACK, NPOV fork, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH) and to emphasize the toxic nature of the article and its (very zealous) defenders. The article's similarity to and affinity with frankly anti-semitic sites and pamphlets had been remarked frequently, but soon after the second AfD was published User:Smeat75 discovered that it had in fact been plagiarized from an anti-Semitic "institute." This fortunate turn of affairs made it difficult to defend the article, though a few fans continue to try. If Wikipedia has a policy against racist and anti-Semitic diatribes, it is exceedingly hard to identify and not well known; in consequence, the AfD discussion has often turned on citation practice and shouts of WP:NOTCENSORED rather than on the toxic nature of the article.

In the time between the first and second AfD the article had been slightly improved, at least temporarily -- not least because the article was more or less continually before AN/I and its zealous defenders were thus forced to slightly moderate their ongoing battleground. That did not prevent a good deal of ugliness, including an infamous edit claiming that another editor, as a religious Jew, ought not to edit Jews and Communism. That edit earned a slap on the wrist from an admin; otherwise, little or no help or support was received while numerous editors spent hundreds of hours trying to address this pernicious and unnecessary problem.

The original AfD was too narrow, and the closer failed to examine the article with sufficient care to recognize how embarrassing the article was. I very much doubt Wikipedia can handle situations like this one under the current arrangements and with the current personnel, and I am very doubtful that it can survive the scandal that another episode like this might cause. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

At this moment it is premature to say if the system has failed, because the process is ongoing. What I can say is that the community is united and overwhelming in advocating deletion of this article on solid policy grounds. The article is brimming with red flags, beginning with the title. I'm actually quite happy, so far. But it's like the old joke about the guy who drops out the window and is happy during the first eight of the nine stories of the building. Coretheapple (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein: - re "The original nomination was cast strictly in terms of Wikipedia policy (NPOV fork), which is often a prudent course" - I had the same thought Mark. Perhaps the first AfD just wasn't proposed in the right light. NickCT (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the initial closer felt that there was no consensus. While I think that he was deeply wrong, it was not a totally illogical conclusion (ditto for the DRV results[14]). It was a messy and hard to follow discussion that went all over the lot. It featured vitriolic support from two editors, one of whom was found, since then, to have copied it from an anti-Semitic website, and has since retired thanks to an AN discussion that is overwhelmingly in favor of a topic ban. The other editor switched from support to strong delete, and has voluntarily consented to ban himself from such topics in the future. In place of the messy free-swinging debate, this one has been subdued, with only ordinary back-and-forth, with an avalanche of participation, massively from previously uninvolved editors, almost unanimously in favor of deletion. Yes, true, it is not over until it's over, but so far the system seems to be working. But in terms of the atmosphere and the character of the discussion, it couldn't be more different and the reason it is different is very simple and clear. Coretheapple (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, Mark, Wikipedia policy does specifically prohibit propaganda, which this certainly was. One of the more recent persons commenting in the AfD cited WP:PLUG, which is policy. It is right there in WP:NOT. I agree that it is hard to locate, but then again, very little on Wikipedia is easy to find. Coretheapple (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Google ruling

To begin with, you deserve this:

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For unequivocally explaining that censoring search engines' news results for "relevance" is just plain not going to work.

Burn this server?

Seeing your comments at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27407017 , I'm very aware that you could have gone down another path, arguing that typical BLP practices of excluding unproven allegations were in line with European policy. The problem is simply that, as the original case illustrates, there is no telling how much published and well-known information about a person will be affected as a dozen different countries try to enforce their own censorship standards on the world. It is surely better to acknowledge that outright rather than waiting for an "unexpected" legal case. Wikipedia is an effort to provide an open database of information despite copyright laws, and now the EU wants to set up a whole new kind of copyright, even vaguer than the first, that puts all serious encyclopedic efforts to collate the available news about someone at risk. This is a good step.

That said, it sounds like an obvious problem that there are some Wikimedia servers in the Netherlands. I don't really understand what they do, but is there any way to keep them from being used as a target or excuse for EU-based actions? For that matter, I'm not even clear whether the WMXX chapters are a problem since, like Google's ad-selling service, they couldn't really exist if there were no Wikipedia. It's hard not to feel like longer latency times aren't what the EU people deserve anyway at this point... is there a plan in place to autotomize everything in Europe? Wnt (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic too, but anyone recall the early history of the "right to be forgotten". I remember discussing it as far back as 1976, but I can't remember whose ideas I was discussing. He was something of a computer guru of his time as well I recall, and it's bugging me. Anyone help here? Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure whom you are thinking of, but I have written and spoken on this general subject; see links on my talkpage. I'll be giving two presentations at Wikiconference New York later this month that will touch on these issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC

Thanks, Brad. I'll look in. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Two remarks only to the OP's statement: Firstly, Wikipedia is not an effort to provide an open database of information despite copyright laws because any "free" license is based on a hack of copyright law, viz. copyleft, which itself uses and builds upon copyright law. And then, you are addressing perhaps the deepest divide between European and American legal cultures, viz. the absence of a constitutional right to protect the interest of an individual against the misuse of personal data by other private players in the market. The U.S. does not respect something we call data-protection law, and the Europeans do not really understand that a civilised country still has a seemingly boundless law such as the First Amendment to the U.S. constitution. What's more, we do not feel that this has anything to do with "censorship", but it is rather a matter of human dignity and of human rights. This division goes very deep because it is built into the code of all platforms that have come out of the U.S. including MediaWiki which saves the IP address of any editor which is not really necessary and which also contradicts European law. At the beginning of this week, a lawyer who is a long-time counsel of Wikimedia Deutschland at Berlin has just spoken on this issue shortly before the European court of justice announced its decision on the right to be forgotten against Google Inc. His wise and instructive talk on the intricacies of data-protection law can be seen on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xow_l0VnXNs (in German).--Aschmidt (talk) 02:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I may just be missing the point entirely, but in the US isn't there a "right to remember" as in "freedom of thought"? Isn't there still freedom of speech? When did any legislature, constitutional convention, emperor, etc. come up with this "right to forget?" If the EU doesn't like what Wikipedia (or our anonymous editors) do in the US what can they do to stop us? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Your last sentence says it perfectly well: What can we in Europe do in order to stop the Americans from breaking what we think is a human right our legal system protects? Probably nothing legal, in the end we can only stop using U.S. platforms altogether. And this is not only a legal question. B2B business has already turned away from American cloud services. And we also think about a European internet excluding the NSA.--Aschmidt (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the reality in all the European posturing on this issue. The UK is at least as integral a part of the UKUSA spying network as the U.S.! And the expansion to the "Nine Eyes" and the "Fourteen Eyes" occurred back in the 1940s-1950s: that's UK/US/AU/CA/NZ + Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Norway + Germany, Belgium, Italy, Spain and Sweden. The difference is that Americans have proud traditions of free speech and our people don't have the instinct to shut up about anything. I mean, you order guards to humiliate detainees and there's Lynndie England photoing herself with human pyramids. We have Manning, we have Snowden. Sure, we have a supremely dangerous all-encompassing scheme of mass surveillance too, but that is the same in every country. We're only distinguished by not believing in it.

Now when it comes to "privacy", the EU doesn't want this corporation or that corporation dealing with the data, but the data is still out there. They never forced the newspaper to take down the original article in the Google case - they just don't want ordinary people coming up with it in a search. I assume that if you tick off some aristocrat in any EU country that he will have some kind of special subscription access to a real search, doesn't he? And can use that information to come down like a ton of bricks on his hapless opponent for being uppity. Wnt (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course the UK and the USA have stuck their heads together here and provide another example of their … special relationship. But this is about industrial espionage, so I am pretty confident that a solution to protect national interests in a globalised context will be found in the end—to the detriment of the former because this will rather tend to isolate the free-speach fraction. I think, as Wikipedians, we should be aware of two things: Firstly, no other big player amongst the Alexa top ten ranking websites than the WMF will ever discuss its terms of use or any other policies with the community. And then, so far we still have not properly understood how to deal with the legal divide. We cannot do away with it shortly because it is built inside the code of our big platforms up and including MediaWiki, and, according to Lawrence Lessig, code is law. All that I can say is that in this country people in the post-Snowden era have become much more aware of the dangers that go with using U.S. cloud services up and including Wikipedia, and they have become reluctant to registering with any major platform (a major blow to editor engagement, from our point of view). If they want to use one, they try to do so anonymously or with a number of accounts, with encryption. Some even manipulate the faces in pictures they upload to social networks so as to protect themselves and others in them. And some, like myself, have stopped using social networks altogether. We as societies—U.S. and European—must find a solution for this, at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned. And I'm afraid that Jimbo's interview with the BBC was not leading us the way to choose because it is wrong to ignore the well-founded concerns by millions of users in European countries. The EJC and the European Commission are not acting on their own. This is in line with the public opinion and with our legal traditions.--Aschmidt (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

If this is about industrial espionage, then surely the U.S. cannot be the villain, because what is there left that we make? Sure, we research all the gee-whiz products of the future, computers and solar panels and graphene and all that, but when it's time to buy something we expect to find a "Made In China" label on the back.

You are right that something has to give on the policies of social networking. There are two great forces at work here - the progressively large amount of personal information available, and the discrimination based on it. But it is the discrimination end that needs to give way. I have argued this several times recently on this very page, in reference to people working at WMF. I even started blathering about it in an essay a while back, though I admit I need to make that more compelling to get somewhere with it. Throughout our society, we need to commit to recognizing positive rights to things like employment and housing (which would in turn include direct availability of free credit to individuals, rather than the largest banks). We may even need to commit to a theoretical reevaluation of the economic system that steers clear of both the recent fundamentalist revisions of capitalism and the elaborate and uncritically developed dogmas of socialism. But in the near term, all we have to do to make some significant progress is simply to ban companies from looking up people on Google when they decide whether to give them a job or a loan. We don't have to ban everyone from looking them up on Google, only those who hold uncompetitive power over people's lives.

I should emphasize that this is not a new mode of progress. There was a time when to lambast someone in a newspaper meant you fought a duel with them. Even Thomas Jefferson's vice-president Aaron Burr was dragged into one of those affairs. But people learned that the answer was not to silence the newspaper by force of arms, but by reason. Things were little different just a few decades ago with homosexuality, where any truthful report of a person's homosexual orientation could be treated in many places as libel - but in the end, the answer was to destroy the discrimination. The freedom of speech that individuals enjoy can be a very harsh taskmaster, but it drives us forward toward a better society, one where people don't enjoy just a fitful slumber in the hope that no one reads something about them, but where tolerance, justice, forgiveness, truth, love and goodness have spread out onto the world. Wnt (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

According to [15] the requests to Google to "be forgotten" include a pedophile wanting his conviction not to be indexed and a doctor demanding (only) negative reviews not come up in a search. A few days ago reputation management was something we all viewed as sleazy -- now Europe wants them in charge over anyone who dare say where you can find things about a topic on the internet. Wnt (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's not a complete list of the requests Google has received, obviously. It's just a few selected highlights - Google exercising its right to remember selectively... Formerip (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

David B. Rivkin as a personal resume

Jimbo, I'm looking at David B. Rivkin and coming away from it feeling like it is a personal resume or speaker bureau bio, rather than an encyclopedia article. I began to look into the history of the article, and I see that it was created in a big first step by Dr. Susan Hardwicke, who is a friend of Rivkin's. Basically, Hardwicke kept control of the article for about seven months, with only sporadic IP address editors touching in on it. From 2011 to 2013, the maintenance of the article shifted over to some new users, specifically User:Cbbaldwin, User:JasonLYu, and User:Stevethepatriot. Without claiming to "out" anyone, it is a fact that Brent Baldwin and Jason Yu collaborate on press releases for David Rivkin, and that Jason Yu worked for (and may still work for) "The Hardwicke Group", whose CEO is Susan Hardwicke. They use the "Patriot Action Network" (Stevethepatriot?) for promoting their press releases. Looking at the Rivkin article Talk page, it appears that there's only been one significant call for scrutiny on the article, and that (amusingly) came from an IP address that (at least now) is assigned to "amateur-beaver-shot.com". This article gets about 15 page views per day, so not exactly a household name, but still serving a purpose for some number of readers. What would you suggest is the best way to "handle" a situation like this, if at all? - 2001:558:1400:10:412B:35D4:A950:1B39 (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree it does look a lot like a list of achievements rather than an article. So why can't you fix it?KonveyorBelt 15:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I could fix it the way I think it should be fixed -- by deleting it and asking neutral, uninvolved-in-public-relations editors to recreate it, if they wish. But, that would probably get me blocked, wouldn't it? - 2001:558:1400:10:412B:35D4:A950:1B39 (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Since you're already blocked, it seems inaccurate to say "But, that would probably get me blocked, wouldn't it?" Why don't you stop this one-case-at-a-time complaining and just come up with a list of a thousand or so articles that look like they were written by PR firms and the (not blocked) editors on Wikipedia can start in on fixing it. You can leave the list on my talk page. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

A link to a Wikimediocracy page doesn't do it for me. I'd rather not wade thru all the BS and vitriol. Just a list of articles, and if you want, the PR editors for each article. A thousand would be a good number - and we all know that there are 1,000's out there. Please make the list carefully - I'm not going to be able to edit these all myself - but if some volunteers and I see that it is a quality list and not just your personal axe-grinding, we'll be able to make progress. Your choice - be useful or continue just being a pain in the butt. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good idea. I suggest that it be listed in a chart with the following descriptions for each: 1) Name of article 2) Identity of principal editor 3)Purported COI of principal editor and, last but not least 4)Honest explanation of why article subject or COI editor is being targeted by Mr. 2001 (e.g., ratting out the competition; purported role in Wikipedia conspiracy theory, etc.) Without No. 4 I for one would not be interested in running around on behalf of Mr. 2001. There are plenty of COI articles out there that don't raise his ire. Given the fact that he is a leading defender of paid editing, I'd say that assuming bad faith is a reasonable assumption. Coretheapple (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we could make this easy or difficult for Mr. 2001. Why not make it easy for him, and then check on the individual articles? Of course others could add to the list, and they'll likely have their own biases. Just a list of articles would be fine with me. He should be told that the one-at-a-time complaints should go to WP:COIN.

This should be a warning to all paid editors. 90% of editors favor some regulation of paid editing. If the other paid editors don't help in reasonable regulation, then Mr. 2001 is set to make the policy (which will never satisfy the 90%) or use tactics like this.

(BTW Core I told you so). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe an even better approach is for Jimbo and the admins who administer this page to enforce the rules against banned users evading their bans. The stench of this guy's hypocrisy is getting to be a bit too much. Coretheapple (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Broken bot?

Is the bot that archives this page working? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Pesky bots. :) I did some manual archiving because this page was getting to monster status. It's still too large, but I personally chose to be on the safe side and not archive anything with comments on or after May 13th, even though the automatic archiving is for 1 day. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

We need more experienced bot runners. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC).

Net neutrality maybe in great danger

Mr. Wales, this is an important issue regarding Net Neutrality. http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/05/15/fcc-net-neutrality-rules/9116157/. This is a big concern for net neutrality proponents who fear that ISPs would use the new rules to justify discriminating against content providers who are reluctant or can't afford to pay for faster lanes and I think you and Wikipedia should be too. You might want to take action as quick as possible, along with all of the other sites. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@BattleshipMan: - Definitely disturbing. I wonder how ISPs managed to lobby for this result. What kind of action can WP take to fight this kind of thing? NickCT (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

We need to spread the word about this to everyone in Wikipedia & many wiki sites in Wikia as much as possible and tell them to take action against this. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@NickCT: - Spread the word about this situation with the Net Neutrality as soon as possible. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. The word must be spread. I wonder if Mr. Wales would considering backing another "blackout" akin to what was done with SOPA? That would spread the word.... NickCT (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

These net-neutrality issues are U.S.-centric and don't threaten Wikipedia directly. Wikipedia should stay neutral on the matter—and I say that as someone who is very much in support of net neutrality. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 20:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

They may likely threaten Wikipedia for sometime here. I have a feeling that we will have another Internet blackout like the one they did in 2012 to the SOPA bill. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@Nihiltres: - Is it true that there's no risk to WP though? I mean, isn't there a risk that Wikipedia could because a "second tier" web content provider (i.e. content on Wikipedia is streamed to people at a lower speed than other sites)? NickCT (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@NickCT:, throttling only threatens convenience until something becomes impractical to use. Wikipedia's already fairly bandwidth-efficient, and most of its content is asynchronous (contrasting with a synchronous video stream, for example). It wouldn't be fun, but it does not threaten Wikipedia's existence the way that, say, SOPA did. SOPA would have introduced legal risks to any site that hosted user-generated content—which threatened Wikipedia directly as a site built entirely by its users. Net neutrality does not directly threaten Wikipedia, despite its importance. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 22:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

We need to put to stop to this situation with Net Neutrality as soon as possible. All I'm asking @Jimbo Wales: is with your help, just like you and Wikipedia did with 2012 Internet Blackout to stop the SOPA an PIPA bills, we can try to save Net Neutrality from being destroyed. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@BattleshipMan:: See my conversation with NickCT above. While net neutrality is a good cause, it's not one that justifies Wikipedia supporting it like that. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 22:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@Nihiltres: It's already important to those who want and need Net Neutrality and sometimes the only way to do that is turn to the site that will make people aware of the situation, like they did with SOPA which threatens directly. We need all the help we can get to protect Net Neutrality, regardless whatever it threatens Wikipedia or not. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@BattleshipMan: Wikipedia isn't a platform for advocacy. Further, a blackout is in contradiction with the first two of the five pillars: the first because a blackout suspends our core mission of operating as an encyclopedia, and the second because a blackout is a fairly extreme form of advocacy. The only obvious justification for suspending those principles is preservation of the project(s). This situation is not sufficiently threatening that that applies.

Regardless, petitioning Wales isn't the way to get this sort of action carried out. Go start an RfC or post on one of the Village Pump sections. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 02:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@Nihiltres: Maybe you want to a long time to load Wikipedia. Do you want that? That will be a problem in the future if it does come down to that. American readers will complain to the Wikipedia about how they ignore help American people to prevent Net Neutrality to ensure the safety of open internet like they did with SOPA and such. And if many people who will be blamed for interfering with efforts to prevent the sites in the U.S. to be censored and such, one of them will be you. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Vehicles in the right-hand lanes on a highway are not being "discriminated against" by the faster-moving vehicles in the faster managed toll lanes to the left. All these "net neutrality" advocates are promoting is the stifling of innovation. Why don't we have "tablet neutrality", where if everyone cannot afford the latest and greatest iPad, then nobody should be able to have the best iPad. Net neutrality has given the United States the disappointing legacy of being one of the slower average speed nations in the industrialized world. We are all equal with our PalmPilots, as it were. - 2001:558:141A:0:0:5EFE:AB1:C068 (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Your thoughts on the Right to be Forgotten

Dear Jimbo,

Just want to register that I completely agree with your sentiment reported in this BBC article relating to the "Right to be Forgotten" ruling. The ruling is "astonishing", and should not make one proud to be European.

Let's hope Google fights this tooth and nail. NickCT (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Steady on. According to the BBC the ruling refers to "irrelevant and outdated" information. This is not a million miles from Wikipedia's polices on "Biographies of Living People" and "Undue Weight". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC).

Or Wikipedia:Clean start for that matter.

The comparison is apt Rich. There's probably good reason to reflect on WP:BLP in the context of this ruling (especially for all those editors who take WP:BLP as a be all and end all). NickCT (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

These comparisons are hazardous. The problem is that while we might, as content creators, decide to make some conciliatory gestures where it doesn't seem to do harm, that is very different from having arbitrary boundaries enforced from outside. To begin with, the "vanished user" edits really aren't that hard to track to an individual anyway, and vanishing a user doesn't mean that a comment you or I made about him goes away. Believe me, the moment you get told that your old talkpage and ANI comments that some User:POVWarrior was defacing your article is a violation of the law, while his ongoing activities continue under cover of the law, you won't be happy about it. The same is even more true of BLP, which is supposed to make sure that unflattering information is sourced -- not that the well-sourced and truthful information is subjected to some external standard about whether it is "irrelevant and outdated".

Now I would have relatively more tolerance for such regulatory hijinks if they were applied only to those claiming the authority to stand in judgment over people and rate them -- for example, when they set themselves up as "big three credit agencies" and spam the TV airwaves with claims that being in their good graces must be your top priority, and you should even pay them a tribute to be allowed to read what lies they're telling about you, and run ever more hubristic ads where they claim to have control over everything that will happen in your life, and tell you you should trust them rather than your own daughter ... I don't deny they're 'asking for it' then, and it's hard not to sympathize if they get it. Hell, if al-Qaida borrowed a jet and sent Experian's corporate penthouse crashing into a basement daycare center, I'd be damned tempted to toast them with champagne. But, that is emotion, not policy. Policy should be that we fight the concentrated economic power that defines our present society, removing not the words of rating agencies, but the power behind those words. It should be clear that so long as Wikipedia remains open to all editors and enforces no POV, Wikipedia should not put itself in such a position of power. Wnt (talk) 02:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The actual ruling, alas, has nothing to do with clean starts, or actual irrelevant and outdated information. In fact, it permits subjects to censor factual, fully-sourced information which they deem embarrassing or would like to see covered up and forgotten. It's censorship, plain and simple. As an historian by training, to say that I am appalled is inadequate in its force. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It would take a brave person to believe that the proposed "right to be forgotten" system is not open to abuse. It means that factual, reliably sourced material cannot be accessed in a web search. In the best traditions of bureaucracy, the decisions on what could be included in a web search would be taken by faceless people whose decisions would be almost impossible to challenge. The comparison with WP:BLP is not apt here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Fortunately here in Europe our legal system is more concerned with the right to privacy of an individual than the inability of historians to get off their lazy arses to do research without Google (and by extension wikipedia). At an outside chance this ruling is only going to affect BLP's and articles that touch on living subjects. BLP and GNG will already filter out the vast majority of people who would consider trying to remove their history from the public eye on the internet, and those that are left, well if we are publishing articles on a spaniards ten year old financial woes, there is something wrong with our policies. Although there is a good argument he is now notable given the ruling. But we can always strengthen BLP1E in response. Worst case scenario, wikipedia gets a request to remove info. Given the amount of admins (and Jimbo himself) who are resident in the UK, this could result in a few summons should it choose not to comply. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This ruling also suggests that lessons have not been learned from the 2011 British privacy injunctions controversy. In the age of the Internet, having information available in country A but not country B soon turns out to be unworkable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree, but there is a slight difference in having something prohibited due to a UK ruling, and having something prohibited by a European court ruling. Granted the US can and does ignore foreign law courts when it chooses, however that would be no consolation to anyone in Europe pulled in and told to remove it. I imagine Wikipedia.de are having a very different conversation about what this means to their project right now. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I had a quick first read through the ruling last night. It struck me as sound (but then I'm a huge fan of the ECJ). Section 4 of the operative ruling prevents paedophiles and incompetent doctors (two examples currently being offered) from having their details erased as the public right takes precedent over their individual rights. There's no issue at all for BLPs so long as the informtion is lawfully published. If the paedophile had convictions that are cited, or the doctor had faced some sort of enquiry about his competence that ruled against him and that was cited, then there's no issue.

I was also musing last night, that Wikipedia has its own mechanism for "the right to be forgotten". It's called the revision delete and it needs to be looked into I feel. It's there primarily to delete grossly offensive material or for oversight purposes protecting the privacy of individual. That's not the way it's used in some examples I was looking at last night. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, there is nothing to stop a person from using Tor or a VPN to change their IP address and see if the search results in another country are significantly different. Another reason why this is a poor idea.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, they should be banned :) ... in fact Tor is blocked on Wikipedia. But yes, that's a good point about the practicality of the ruling. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 07:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Court blocks on access to sites such as The Pirate Bay have turned out to be meaningless for the same reason.[16] It is unclear whether a block in Europe enforced under General Data Protection Regulation Article 17 would affect searches in, say, Sweden Switzerland, the USA or Australia. If it did not, the blocking is pretty much useless and unenforceable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, haven't read it up enough yet (but Sweden of course is part of the EU). I'm doing P v S and Cornwall County Council in my sand box at the moment and expect to be finished with that end May. I might well write up Google following, or at least when it's published. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Right to be forgotten is actually an article. I note that according to the draft legislation cited there, "The processing of personal data solely for journalistic purposes, or for the purposes of artistic or literary expression should qualify for exemption from the requirements of certain provisions of this Regulation in order to reconcile the right to the protection of personal data with the right to freedom of expression, and notably the right to receive and impart information, as guaranteed in particular by Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. This should apply in particular to processing of personal data in the audiovisual field and in news archives and press libraries." What is interesting about that statement from 2012 is that it seems to indicate that a Google search, or at least a Google news search, should be "unconstitutional", or as close as it can come in the EU. I don't know exactly what is being referred to as section 4 above, but looking at [17] it sounds to me like they're running Google's search through a set of guidelines that sound like the boilerplate blah-blah-yeah-right of a typical Privacy Policy (the section containing 'adequate, relevant, and not excessive') written for how websites are supposed to handle the confidential data submitted by users to maintain user privacy! Wnt (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Peter Wyngarde's television acting career was ruined because every time the media mentioned him, they dragged up his convictions from the 1970s. This was unfair, but the convictions themselves were accurate and reliably sourced. Even before the May 2014 ruling, Max Mosley had successfully obtained a ruling in a German court which forced Google to block images of his SM party.[18] The May 2014 ruling might not have raised many eyebrows in Germany where privacy law is already strict, but it is seen as a real worry elsewhere.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• In my day job I come in contact with financial/investment fraud, and illegal operators are very persistent in trying to get negative publicity removed. They can afford good lawyers and they make loud threats against sites that publish anything negative about them. Even if the claims are true, it can still be a very costly business to defend, so site operators without deep pockets are forced to cave in to them. The new law seems to be firmly behind the crooks, and all it seems they now need to do is claim irrelevance (and who is to judge?) and they can get even Google results censored. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

At first sight, only search engines are affected, but Wikipedia is also one of the clear targets. Let's suppose that a WP:BLP about person A mentions a controversial but well-sourced incident in their past. Person A then complains, and the incident is ruled to be "irrelevant and outdated". Bingo, person A's BLP is removed from Google search results. This is why it is hard to accept that there are no real worries for Wikipedia here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

That is not the problem -- where WP has "contentious claims" which are not strongly sourced from the outset. it is clear Google would likely have to remove such articles from the list. The only protection the EU court gives regards "true" information (which it clearly specifies in its English overview release), and it does not remotely suggest that "anonymous allegations" would fit that area of exemption which it does allow. Where the problem is, would only occur if Wikipedia was found to use "anonymous allegations" as a generally found occurrence, in which case, Google might decide on its own to delink all Wikipedia articles about living persons because they are constantly subject to change. If a person found even one revision of their BLP to be contrary to EU law, Google might decide that if any future revision violates the law, and the person had asked for the article to be delinked from any search, that it could be found culpable per this decision. Wikipedia might not be culpable itself (though I find the argument that Wikipedia is "non-commercial" to be problematic as it raises money for itself in excess of expenditures, which some Brussels lawyer would surely pick up on.) Collect (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Who is to judge? I don't know the details yet, but I expect that such decision would be made by a judge. These decisions must weight the public's interest to information with the particular's right to privacy (both are protected by European laws), so they shouldn't be granted automatically. Diego (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Ping

Wouldn't comment on your thoughts without notifying: WT:NCP#Modify recommendation regarding middle names for disambiguation?, the part starting with "Bear with me, I had a completely different thought..." --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)