User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Gender gap task force and RfA proposal

I have made a proposal that I would think would help close the gender gap in WP's administrative corps. I think this is necessary because, speaking from observation and personal experience, WP's RfA process has a lot of serious issues. Cla68 (talk) 06:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Now renamed Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Proposal_from_Cla68_regarding_women_candidates. Closed and premature. But actions to bring in more women or proposals for things to increase numbers that will be more widely accepted certainly are needed. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The proposal was not closed as "premature." It was rejected because the discussion found it to be offensive and infeasible. SPECIFICO talk 14:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

If you are going to comment on almost everything I write, at least get it right. I wrote "Closed and premature." How's this: "Someone closed it AND I and/or others found it premature to propose it when it wasn't even discussed on the talk page, modified or reject there." In short, it was not a Gender Gap task force proposal, as the original subject line suggested, and it was just one individual's proposal, just to be clear so we don't have to hear a 100 accusations it was. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It could never be a GGTF proposal. Everyone here is responsible for their own edits. The GGTF cannot propose anything and is as toothless as any other project in that respect. The best that the GGTF can do is discuss initiatives. - Sitush (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Although actions to address our gendergap - including our administrative gendergap - are sorely needed, especially when taken in the context of the rest of cla's actions this is such obvious trolling that someone should block Cla for a day or two for disruption/WP:POINT. I'd do it myself, but I'm sure people would bring up WP:INVOLVED. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Kevin, to threaten someone for proposing an affirmative action-type remedy is an extremely ironic reflection of the actual hostility that women (and men) face in the real world when the patriarchy threatens them for trying to fix real-life gender-related issues. I appreciate that you said that, because now we have an example of the outright hostility towards women and women's issues that is entrenched in WP's administration. Cla68 (talk) 23:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

While I did not say that your proposal was trolling I did think it very loudly. I find it hard to believe it was meant to be serious. I can see Kevin's point of view, though I don't see anything actionable. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 04:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• • • Kevin Gorman an example of outright hostility towards women and women's issues? Now I've heard it all. I wasn't sure before that Cla68 was trolling, but with that comment it's entirely clear. I won't block anybody for trolling on this page, though. If Jimbo doesn't want to encourage it, he can close the thread. Bishonen | talk 23:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC).
      • Many people aren't aware of their ingrained biases or prejudices until confronted with an actual affirmative action-type proposal that affects something important to them, in this case WP's administrative corps. It's a result of unrecognized, socialized privilege and entitlement. Affirmative action exists for a reason, and people's reactions to such proposals reveals quite a bit about them. If they say, "I disagree", that's one thing. But, when they say, "Burn the witch!", as Kevin is saying here, then that is something else altogether. Cla68 (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
        • I think those reactions have centered around your obvious insincerity, rather than the merits of the proposal itself. MastCell ^Talk 00:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
          • As Mast said, the issue at stake is your obvious mocking insincerity rather than the proposal itself. I'd never suggest blocking someone for the proposal itself. Describing my actions as an example of the outright hostility towards women that is entrenched in Wikipedia's administration is even more solid evidence that you are trolling if anyon doubted it before. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
            • Kevin, you could have said, "I don't agree that an affirmative action measure will work here". Instead, you indicated, "It's a ludicrous idea and I wish I could ban the jackass who proposed it." It's the level of hostility in your reaction that is revealing. Cla68 (talk) 00:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
              • Your argument is rather undercut by how much you exaggerated what I actually said. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
          • If you can tell the sincerity of an anonymous account holder on WP or anywhere else on the Internet, then you're a lot more perceptive than I am. You have to judge by a person's actions here since their tone and demeanor are usually invisible. I voted for the proposal and will be the first one to vote for it if it is again proposed. And, I was disappointed that you didn't vote in support of it. Cla68 (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

It would have worked. Editors running for Admin would all have self-identified themselves as female regardless of their real sex, so the gender gap would have vanished. Count Iblis (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Now, now, we all learned from the Private Manning Case that "you are what you say you are, and that's that." Seriously, that's the majority view of the nature of gender at WP... Carrite (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this was a good idea (after all, I remember proposing such "affirmative action" myself within the past few months) but 15% is a very steep preference. Maybe 5% would have had a chance, but you might have had to start at 2 or 3 percent. I think that "you are what you say you are" very much does apply here - if an admin is willing to walk the walk and deal with a certain risk of bizarre behavior that some women report here, that will make the admin a more experienced and aware candidate regardless of sex or gender.

All that said, the same consideration that can be obtained by a rule could be obtained by a little more awareness of RfA by Gender Gap participants with no formal difference in admission criteria. Wnt (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

While Cla68's proposal and way of announcing it may have had some problems, and he may have over-reacted to criticism aboe, I think it was a serious proposal. Unlike this new joke proposal and series of jokes GG Task Force has to suffer through now. Hold Wales & WMF accountable. Now Kevin can really let loose if he likes! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

That Cla68 is concerned about misogyny I find surprising--from the comments he has made off wiki I would have guessed the opposite. Likewise with the individuals who were previously interested in editing pornography articles and who are now engaging with the Gender Gap project--I can't seem to follow why they are unarchiving threads that were previously archived by the women as off-topic or disruptive. Question for Cla68 about his proposal: can you give an example of a woman's RFA that was unsuccessful, but would have been successful under your proposal? It would help to have a real life example of what you think the problem is. —Neotarf (talk) 05:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

This comment is indicative of part of the problems on the GG project, and perhaps the reason you were added to the arbitration. You seem to think this project is run by and owned by "the women". It is for decreasing the GG, no? I'll be the first to agree that women's perspectives are absolutely vital in order to shrinking the gap, but trying to claim a fiefdom isn't going to accomplish much.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 14:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing in WP:Talk page guidelines that prohibits archiving or refactoring by users who are female. I see no evidence of a female conspiracy to "claim a fiefdom". Judging by the number of complaints about off-topic and disruptive threads, if anything, they were being too cautious and conservative about keeping controversial edits. But maybe TKOP, you can explain why you blanked this users comment? Also you might explain your edit summary here: "why don't you dine on the swine?" Are you soliciting me for something? —Neotarf (talk) 03:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

No, the issue is not archiving comments, the issue is that you seem to be under the erroneous impression that the GGTF is a women's group, for and run by women. It is not. Dine away.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 21:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Please do not put words in my mouth, or give the impression I hold views I do not hold. Also, WRT your edit summary here, I would remind you that rudeness, insults, or indecent suggestions can contribute to an uncivil environment. —Neotarf (talk) 07:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Put words in your mouth? Why let's examine your words verbatim when you elaborated on who you were addressing when you posted a source. Emphasis added mine. The words are all yours. I posted it here as an FYI for consideration by the women, in the context of their project. [1]. You've made similar statements elsewhere. I'll not waste my time collecting them unless needed.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 19:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

What? The Anita Sarkeesian links I dropped on the gender gap talk page? Is that what you're upset about? No, I don't think the links should be passed to some RS group for evaluation, where there are likely to be few women. I meant them for the gender gap group, and I'm sure the group is perfectly competent to evaluate the gender implications for themselves.

I can't help but note that although you were just blocked for disruptively archiving the gender gap talk page, the first thing you did when your block expired was to rush right over to the gender gap talk page, start reverting SlimVirgin's archiving, and start ordering her around. I also note that, like the guy who has a swastika sig when he welcomes people at the teahouse, when you go over to the gender gap project, you now have a sig that says "Makin' Bacon". —Neotarf (talk) 01:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I find this whole discussion very disturbing. This is not the place for it, and someone should have told Cla68 that instead of stoking this fire. However, the worst thing about it is the deeply-entrenched sexism that is evident from some of the above comments, not to mention the attempt to "out" Cla68 by referring to off-wiki events. The fact that a majority disagreed with the proposal does not make it insincere and certainly does not make it trolling. These are wild accusations from undisciplined contributors. Deb (talk) 10:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

No one is attempting to "out" Cla68, at least that I know of. He uses the same name elsewhere as he does here. —Neotarf (talk) 03:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Controversial current events

Articles about controversial current events seem to attract editors with a bias. I have the impression that Wikipedia's influence on public opinion for these subjects is negligible compared to the influence of the news media, so that the only thing a biased editor could accomplish is to influence readers that Wikipedia is biased. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Controversial article attract biased editors on both sides as well as neutral editors. Hopefully all sides work together to form an article that is neutral and unbiased (+/-5%).~Technophant (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Look! A dead seagull flying high! - Nabla (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

User:MutterErde

Hi, User:Jimbo Wales, why did you block Mutter Erde? Lotje (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Strange to bring up something from 2005, but of course you can just look up the reason at the block log: "persistent copyvios after repeated warnings". Deli nk (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, strange to ask about a block from nearly 9 years ago. (Amazing to think how long it has been!) What made you wonder?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The edits on the different wikipedia do not seem to "fit". Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't the old blocks be let to expire after a time limit? Otherwise we'll end up with an enormous number of indefinite blocks by the year 2100... Count Iblis (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Possibly but what's the harm?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

We probably won't be around by 2100. Besides, it's not like they're doing any harm. BethNaught (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Throughout Wikipedia, "harm" seems to have become the watchword, and it seems "harm" can only be done by having content, not by not having it. So there's no harm in deleting articles 'just to be safe', based on some guess about what might happen if people read them, even when the rest of the world doesn't see it that way; nor in getting rid of the editors (like MeropeRiddle in the thread deleted above) for expecting, naively, that Wikipedia policy is publicly readable someplace; nor is there harm, as you say, in keeping a database of editors to be blocked for all time, so that the threat of some outing deters them from ever trying to start afresh. But if the people here really believe all that, why don't you just walk down to the server room and empty a couple of clips into them? You could probably avoid hundreds, even thousands of embarrassing incidents, even save a few lives somewhere, though we may not know where, by preventing the wrong people from learning the wrong thing. Sure, some readers lose some knowledge that might have slaked their idle curiosity, but who cares? That's as valueless as the hundreds of thousands of edits so many of the most active editors put in before being banned for some trumped-up issue. Why do so many here act like they really believe that contributions are the problem, information is the problem, and discarding editors and censoring out the facts is the universal answer? Wnt (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Nice rant, but not sure how it applies in this context. We are talking about a user banned for "persistent copyvios after repeated warnings".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You don't think we can let someone like that have a fresh start after nine years? True, in many ways it might be better for the person to start a fresh account and never mention the old one, but the way WP works, as long as the old one remains blocked there's a risk that the person admits he used to post under that account or can be traced from some postings on the web, etc. -- and end up with a fresh batch of trouble. We would do better to sweep all this stuff aside. I think past contributors, whether perfect or not, are still a good pool of prospects for future involvement. Wnt (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do think we can let just about anyone have a fresh start after nine years. That's why I said that I don't claim any special privilege with respect to the fact that I happened to be the one who banned him. We should just treat it like any other ban from nine years ago. What I meant in my comment to you is that the rant about having content versus not having content isn't really relevant to this particular case.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@ User:Wnt, you are right, information is the problem... too often. Though, I am convinced wiki wizzards and fairies are keeping a vigilant eye and help wherever they can.

@ User:Jimbo Wales, would you consider unblocking User:Mutter Erde. He, might be willing to make a fresh start. Thank you for considering it. Ye'all have a great day today. Lotje (talk) 06:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

So really what your are asking for the ban on User:MutterErde to be lifted. The relevant policy page is WP:UNBAN although it is a little unclear how bans imposed by Jimbo can be lifted. I would start by the user making a case for why the ban should be lifted on their talk page: User talk:MutterErde. The appeal should address the two main reasons the ban was imposed WP:COPYVIO and WP:SOCK. Note ban and blocks are different things, bans which MutterErde has are more serious. See the reason for the ban at WP:BANLIST.--Salix alba (talk): 08:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Just read the text in the Jimbo Wales section of WP:BANLIST. "They may appeal their ban by emailing him or the Arbitration Committee."--Salix alba (talk): 08:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

In this case, I'm happy to say that the fact that I am the one who banned him 9 years ago should play no special role today. If he seeks to be unbanned, he can follow whatever procedure the community thinks appropriate.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

About the harm this does, consider the situation on the long run. After a time T, the fraction of editors blocked in a time period spanning t will scale as t/T (this will start to be valid some time after the number of editors has stopped to grow exponentially). So, we'll have a huge list of blocked editors, but that list will be dominated by people who were blocked a long time ago. We keep an eye on new editors to see if they are socks of the blocked editors, so most of that effort is going to be wasted on checking for irrelevant or non-existent threats with the risk of false positives (who cares if an editor blocked at the age of 15 has returned at the age of 30?) The editors who should remain blocked are the editors who were blocked recently (in the last few years or so). It thus makes sense to unblock all editors after, say, 5 years unless there is evidence of recent misbehavior by socks. Count Iblis (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• IMO after 5 years, unless the community has decided that they cannot come back under any means, a banned or blocked editor should be able to make a clean start account, and if someone finds out it will not be held against them. KonveyorBelt 19:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

In all honesty, am confused because I noticed there is a User:Mutter Erde and a User:MutterErde. I posted a message on the de.wikiquote userpage because I feel, having said A, I need to say B. The rest is up to everyone concerned I guess. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we need an automated process to randomly delete stuff from Wikipedia. We could start with empty sections. They are so evil [2]. Stubs should be next, particularly those with zero refs etc. Then we could have process by which we automatically delete sourced material too, particularly if admin disagrees with it. Most sources are known to be unreliable from time to time. So DELETE all of them, just as a precaution. JMP EAX (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Yahoo and your opinion on NSA requests

I was just curious given the newly released documents regarding Yahoo's lawsuit against the US Federal govt's NSA "requests" for user information what your opinion would be, and what possible courses of action are open to you personally, should the Wikimedia Foundation ever receive such a "request" and subsequent threat of a $25,000 daily fine if the WMF declines the request. Secondly I'm curious if you've ever been asked, or if you have asked, to present testimony to any Congressional committee hearings on such topics of internet privacy and such government requests.Camelbinky (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I've never been asked and if I were, I would protest with every fiber of my being.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I would like to see you tell Congress what you believe, and hope your passion persuades them to reign in some of these government actions.97.85.208.225 (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Wait - I obviously misread something. If I were asked to present testimony to a Congressional committee hearing on topics such as this I would do so proudly and eagerly and I would consult with experts in advance to make sure that my testimony would be accurate and maximally impactful. I misread the above to be a question about what are my personal views of what I would do, or would advise the Foundation to do, in case we got a request of the first type. I apologize for any confusion!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia editor being railroaded by Wikipediocracy

[Note from Jimbo: I will be unable to look into this in a timely fashion but it sounds like there would be nothing for me to do at this stage anyway other than the usual: to advice calm, quiet reflection, a reduction of drama, and a serious effort to treat everyone with dignity as human beings.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)]

Mr Wales, Tutelary was doxxed by members of Wikipediocracy. They also claim that she is not really a transwoman, which is obvious transphobia. Now there is a proposal on ANI to topic ban her from BLPs or even site ban her. Just because she moderates some subreddits about women on Reddit does not mean that she is an MRA. Remember, Wikipediocracy are the same people who claimed that a KKK member shouldn't be editing articles about Jews. That's not how Wikipedia works - anyone can edit anything. I bet Tutelary knows more about feminists than most of the people who edit in that topic area. Please put a stop to this harrassment by Wikipediocracy supporters. Anyone voting to ban Tutelary should be banned for supporting doxxing. Doxelary (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

This is my favorite edit. We wouldn't want the readers thinking a fedora was ever anything but the manliest of manly hats. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow, Elaqueate, that's pretty impressive — 1300 edits your first month at Wikipedia and more than 3500 your second!!! Care to disclose your previous account name??? You don't seem to want to link account names on your user page, I see... (The cult of anonymity sucks.) Carrite (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC) — my bad, read years as months. Still — no linkage of accounts showing. Carrite (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I've never had another Wikipedia account. There's nothing to link. How many accounts do you have? __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

If you were to take a gander at the page's history, it will be painfully obvious the context of that revert. But yes, in given Doxelary's (is that a play on my name?) observation, I have been doxxed and there is a ANI proposal to site ban me. Oh, and for sheer else other than respect to trans people, a savvy ArbCom member should take a look at the whole darned mess as there are several people still referring to me by male pronouns when I've made clear that I am a woman. Tutelary (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, how horrible of Tutelary to revert a vandalism-only sockpuppet account. Exactly what level of absurdity is this witch-hunt going to reach?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention HJ Mitchell's block was for vague WP:NOTHERE reasoning, not for socking. So their contributions aren't quantifiable for deletion anywho by HJ Mitchell's own block. Tutelary (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

User:The Devil's Advocate: defender to the last of Qworty and User:Bonkers The Clown. (Bonkers calls African Americans niggers on article talk pages, calls the US president magic nigga, and wears a swastika in his user name when greeting newbies at the tea house.) Don't go taking his support as any kind of vindication. His name means what it says. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I know that there is an unfortunate coincidence that you on your travels, Jimmy, and not able to scrutinize things closely, just as you were when the Essjay shit hit the fan, but it is worth considering whether you want to support someone playing the same sort of game as Essjay played of pretending to be what he was not in order to gain an advantage in on-Wiki discussions. Do you again want to let a troll, in this case a misogynist one, be seen to have gulled you?--92.238.57.40 (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Administrator and blocker of the IP HJ Mitchell restored the IP's comment, even though in their block heavily implicated they were a sock, yet he doesn't want us to remove the reply. Still, I am a woman and the fact that you only have insults and dragging my name through the mud to back up your accusations is really telling. Tutelary (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Whoever you are, the facts are clear. You have been pursuing a misogynistic campaign.KonveyorBelt 01:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Doxelary, what exactly do you want from Wales, to block Wikipediocracy? 84.253.75.6 (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary — stop socking. Carrite (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

If Tutelary emails you, I recommend you don't click any links or open any attachments. (Per WP:ANI#above.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)