User talk:Jimbo Wales

The Atlantic - How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women

Just posted this afternoon. Aside from a relatively minor error about user rights near the top, Paling does a pretty good job of summarizing and drawing attention to some of the more salient trends/problems/incidents. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The article is an interesting read, and highlights areas that need work. I'm sure we can all identify some items in that article that might deserve a more complete treatment of issues, but this is a minor point, and universally true in my experience whenever I read an article in the media about a subject where I have personal experience.

I am puzzled about the assertion that Nellie A. Brown was nominated for deletion immediately after creation. I don't see it in the edit history, nor did I find it in the AFD logs. Am I missing something?--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

This is another factual error by the writer, Sphilbrick. The article in question is Clara H. Hasse, as confirmed on Facebook by Missvain (Sarah Stierch). At the time a new page patroller flagged it for deletion, the content consisted of "Clara H. Hasse (1880?-1924) was an assistant horticulturist and botanist in the Bureau of Plant Industry, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., and later worked at the Florida Experiment Station." Not a strong claim of notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for tracking that down. That's exactly what I wanted to do, see what it looked like at the time of nomination. There are lessons to be learned from that article. One potential lesson is that taggers should allow a bit more time before nomination, but, arguably, an equally valid lesson is that draft space was created for stubs like this. The only lesson which doesn't seem supported is the notion that gender was involved.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Eric Corbett is not an administrator, as the article states incorrectly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It's just the normal press hyperbole. It makes for a better story if I'm an administrator, so that's what they describe me as. Eric Corbett 20:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

And nothing indicating Lightbreather's ban was for their disruptive editing on gun control topics. It seems the reader is deliberately left to draw their own (wrong) conclusions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, the author expressed (via Twitter) that she's trying to have that line (EC=admin) corrected. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Eric, does that give you a claim for defamation :) --S Philbrick(Talk) 01:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

To be fair there's nothing in the actual Arbcom decision indicating that her ban was for disputive editing on gun control topics either. It simply states "Lightbreather is site-banned. They may request reconsideration of the ban no earlier than one year after it is enacted." Not only that but 4 of the arbs who voted to support the ban cite her reaction to the porn pictures as what's pushed them over the edge. The words "gun control" are not mentioned once in the support section for the ban. Brustopher (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The findings of fact overwhelmingly refer to her gun control edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course, Paling’s argument remains devastating: calling a woman a cunt is permissible, but that woman’s feisty editing was intolerable, even after taking into account vicious and unremitting sexual harassment. Indeed, ArbCom initially urged future culprits faced with harassment to lower their profile -- an invidious recommendation that was reluctantly amended after community outcry.

In the big picture, petty procedural details have no impact outside Wikipedia, while Wikipedia's continuing embrace of harassment and protection of harassers remains the key story for the world outside the project’s back rooms. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

No woman was called a cunt so far as I'm aware, and certainly not by me, admin or not. Eric Corbett 22:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Were you correctly quoted? "the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The quote is correct, unfortunately. The link is here.AKAF (talk) 05:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

In which the only specific person referenced is Jimbo... Rhoark (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Excellent article. Another example the article could have mentioned is the awful way that women editors are generally treated in WP's science and alternative medicine articles by WP's "pro-science" editors. Cla68 (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that some editors encounter opposition because they promote the theories of what Jimbo calls "lunatic charlatans", not because of their genders. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It's rarely as black and white as all that, and yes, there may well be a gender issue in some of the articles I've seen though I don't see the issue raised much. Not at all in the ongoing GMO arbitration to my knowledge. Coretheapple (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Cullen328, there's an essay on [[lunatic charlatans]]. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that Eric Corbett is an admin now, but rather that he was an admin at the time of this discussion. However, the log for Corbett's userpage gives no hint that this was ever the case. So yes, it seems to be wrong (not that there was any reason to doubt Corbett's own word that it was). I just wished I'd looked here before I looked around for Corbett's RFA (both under his current username and his previous one). Everymorning (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• The Atlantic piece is distorted, one-sided, self-serving petunia fertilizer. As is fairly typical of most Mainstream Media "Wikipedia Scandal and Hysteria — Click here!" pieces, actually... Carrite (talk) 05:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Why is it that in eight years and almost sixty thousand edits I cannot recall seeing even one instance of gender based attacks on editors? Have I somehow managed to avoid entering the lawless ghetto areas of en.WP? Are there particular topics or subject areas that "attract" such misogynism? I'm aware of, but do not even pretend to understand "Gamergate", probably because computer/video games are a topic I have absolutely no interest in. I very occasionally post to th WikiProject Feminism talk page, (usually in my AFC reviewer role to solicit topic specialist help for reviewing draft submissions) but even there I don't see attacks, probably because they get redacted really quickly. So basically I'm asking if there are particular areas where the hate occurs, and if so could action be specifically targetted, rather than the constant, non-specific bleating about the issue (here and in the media) that almost never results in any positive action. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

If only there were news articles documenting specific attacks where you could read about them and realize they exist. Gamaliel (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Now that there is a bit of sneaky sarcasm! Well, done. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 22:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

If you understand how distorted this Atlantic piece is, then you understand Gamergate. Rhoark (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• What is the proportion of rude and stupid persons among all these people born from a woman ? It could be be rather high, and the present thread is not a counter-example. If we try to cross-examine the situation introducing sex or gender or any other parameter of this kind as an explanatory variable, the first impression is that men as a whole are more rude/stupid than women as a whole. But this should be pondered, because the first group appears as including more vociferating people. When corrected from the vociferans factor, the sex factor appears to be very less explicative about the stupidity/rudeness by itself. For the specific case of the may be former admin that has been reported by some reporter, calling him a cunt could appear as promotional. But calling him a dick could appear as sarcastic: don't we have a proverb, in such and such corners of the English speaking world, about smaller/greater speeches and smaller/greater dicks ? Therefore, let us limit ourself to: the lapser has relapsed. Pldx1 (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I would say the proportion of rude and stupid persons born from a woman is 100%. I've also seen the movie Junior though, so I could be wrong.--Atlan (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Incorrectly describing Eric Corbett as an administrator whilst naming three female admins but not describing them as administrators is sloppy journalism but arguably only one mistake. Other articles on the same site that criticise institutions make it clear that they asked the institution for a comment, I wonder if Eric Corbett was extended that same courtesy by the journalist who criticized him on the internet? Also one of the central charges in the Atlantic piece is that Arbcom refused to sanction the offsite harasser "on the grounds that it may “out” the editor that had posted the pictures, or link his username to his real name". but looking at the Arbcom judgement "The functionaries team reviewed evidence submitted about off-wiki sexual harassment of Lightbreather, but was unable to reach a consensus over whether or not it was sufficient to connect a Wikipedia editor to the harassment. The Wikimedia Foundation was kept fully informed throughout. The functionaries and the Arbitration Committee also reviewed evidence of a separate, apparently unrelated, pattern of off-wiki harassment. As there was conclusive evidence of the identity of the perpetrator of the second series of events, User:Two kinds of pork was blocked." That looks to me a non-trivial difference both in that ARBCOM do block where the evidence is clear and that their reason for not blocking was quality of evidence not a preference to protect the perpetrator. Was there an earlier finding that means the article was just a few months out of date? ϢereSpielChequers 12:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• The chronology in the article is also wrong. We were notified of the off-wiki harassment two weeks AFTER the case started. This is another non-trivial difference,  Roger Davies ^talk 17:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's not forget that we can attack the fake-porn harassment from the far end. WMF should make a clear policy that it will not discriminate against any employee, volunteer, or editor based on whether he or she has appeared naked, whether in a fraud, "revenge porn", or legitimate erotica. By setting a standard that this is not a legitimate ground for discrimination, we can take away a bit of the power of people who try this kind of stunt anywhere, against any woman known or unknown, and move a little bit closer to the day when such harassment will never occur because people know it cannot be effective. Wnt (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

There exists a world beyond the Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation, and in that world, having one’s faked nudes publicized can have chilling effects on employment prospects. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein: But dammit, it shouldn't. It's wrong, it's stupid, and it's a clear source of anti-woman discrimination, because so many more people circulate fake (and real) nudes of them. And if Wikipedia doesn't have the balls to stand up and say enough is enough to this nonsense, who do we expect to? Companies don't lead a civil rights parade - people do. And Wikipedia is the people's encyclopedia. Wnt (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

That may be true, but pretending that a WMF statement will make everything fine seems would be wrong. I'd also note that the same tactic can be, and has been, used by Gamergate against prominent Wikipedians who are gay, or whom they thought to be gay, or whom they believed could be intimidated by threats to expose their sexual orientation. The answer to sexual harassment at Wikipedia is to punish the harassers, not their targets; Paling is not the first to suggest this, and her article is a good index of how the project appears to the interested public. It’s not a pretty picture. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you have some evidence of Gamergate actually doing such a thing? Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein: If we oppose a kind of sexual discrimination, then stopping every such case that ends at Wikipedia is about equally useful as stopping the cases that begin here. Either way, it is part of a much larger task, but it is something worth doing. (I don't mean to discourage anyone from attacking the problem at both ends.) Wnt (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The article reads like it was written by Evergreenfir. They should be embarrassed with themselves publishing it. Wikipedia is hostile to everybody, and I mean everybody. And it makes no difference if you're male or female, or what race you are. Everybody is treated poorly here by default .♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

If you think Wikipedia doesn't have a problem with women, you must be – pardon my French – fucking stupid. Wikipedia culture bends over backwards to protect certain privileged people from accountability for their actions. In any other institution on the planet, calling a woman a "cunt" would mean you'd be expelled pretty sharpish, not given mutually masturbatory accolades and respect. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I just find it interesting and quite humorous that literally the first thing after saying "everyone is treated poorly" is that the poster is "fucking stupid." I think that very well just proved his point, didn't it? Sethyre (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I've asked about half a dozen women I know who happen to be very active content contributors and active with women topics on here and none of them have ever thought they've been harassed because of their gender on wikipedia. They really don't see that sort of thing going on on here myself and believe that all editors face the same problems here. The c word was unfortunate but in the UK it is almost always directed at an annoying male.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, women who were insulted by being called cunts should feel bad, because CLEARLY they don't understand the cultural context that makes such comments ok. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

If only women would just listen to your mansplaining, everything would be just fine. Everyone gets called a cunt? Everyone gets fake porn made about them? I've been here a decade and I've been harassed, doxxed, blackmailed, gotten death threats, there's a webpage out there with my face next to a nazi flag. And all of that pales in comparison to what women have been subjected to here. Because everyone gets shabby treatment does not mean that all the treatment is the same. Even if that were true, the answer isn't "suck it up, ladies", it's "what do we do about this problem?" Gamaliel (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

We all face hostility on here Gamaliel. It doesn't happen in the groups I'm involved with, we treat each other as equals. Most of the people I see speaking mostly strongly on the women harassment thing on here are transgender and I think there's a reason for it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Pure nonsense. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Now wikipedia is a big site I'm sure there's certain comments made from time to time which could be perceived as misogyny, but the idea that all women are constantly being attacked on here because they're a woman is utter bollocks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's be clear about this. The only person I've ever called a cunt on WP is Jimbo, who I have every reason to believe is not a female. Eric Corbett 18:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Blofeld, you sound like the kind of person who walks past a Black Lives Matter protest, and thinks its appropriate to say "no, no, all lives matter!". Corbett is just one example of the (Personal attack removed) on Wikipedia. Remember Bedford, who Jimbo personally desysopped for calling female admins "feminazis"? Or Kmweber, who made a habit of harassing women but ArbCom refused to take any action on him? Sceptre ^(talk) 18:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

You state that you're transgender, of course you feel very strongly on it as I think you're likely to perceive society as giving you a hard time anyway. Transgender people in society do unfortunately face discrimination. You may have experienced it on here I don't know, but I've really asked a lot of women editors I know, who are very active on here and some of them constantly work on women articles, and none of them have ever felt like they're being harassed because they're female.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

That's as fallacious as saying "There isn't a poverty problem because some of my friends on welfare can still pay their rent". Sceptre ^(talk) 18:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

If I do see women getting a hard time on here it's usually from another female. I never see a bunch of male editors all ganging up on one editor because she's female. I'd go as far as to say that a lot of us decent males here feel protective of some of our female colleagues, quite the opposite of the "harassment".♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I should amend my previous comment; you sound like the kind of person who walks past a Black Lives Matter protest and asks "but what about black-on-black crime?" Sceptre ^(talk) 18:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

"I'm just not seeing this alleged misogyny", says editor who calls people "cunts" all the time. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

"All the time"? That's a pretty big lie. Eric Corbett 19:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Screptre: Eric Corbett (who I presume you are referring to here) strongly denies this. Please either withdraw the accusation or provide evidence for your assertion that he (or whichever other editor you are actually referring to) "calls people 'cunts' all the time". Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I find it telling how few (any?) female editors are choosing to participate in this discussion even when the article concerns their experience on Wikipedia. A hostile environment doesn't just mean personal attacks, it can mean that a person feels like their words will be minimized, ridiculed or contradicted.

Of course, you don't need to be female to get this response from other editors. But to a new editor who is checking out a community's environment, trying to decide whether to become an active editor, it definitely can send a message saying, "You are unwelcome here since you don't know all of the rules." I think one reason why the Teahouse is so popular is because it is a safe space where new editors can ask questions when they doesn't understand what is going on and they'll get a response that is not only civil but usually sympathetic, too. That is often not the case on many article talk pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The article also claims that out of all editors with over 500 edits only 6% are women. That's utter tosh too, especially as most editors who are largely inactive never identify as male or female. If you're a regular contributor here you should feel like it's a lot more even.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

In fact, if I were to go just by the editors I've worked with, particularly on FA/GAs I'd be inclined to think that it was about 50/50 between males and females. Eric Corbett 19:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, exactly how it seems to me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: You're seeing an article in which women talk about their experiences with harassment on enwp, and this does not jibe with the experiences of your female friends on enwp. How does this lead you to the conclusion that "women aren't harassed on Wikipedia" and not "some women are harassed on Wikipedia, though evidently not the ones I've spoken to"? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Everybody experiences the problems with the website.. As I say, show me 10 to 20 diffs of obvious malicious harassment of women because of their gender from a range of different people and I might start to see what you're talking about.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Blofeld, you might listen to me; please drop this. That you don't see it is a testament to the efficiency of the oversighters at getting rid of the crap and the checkusers at stopping the worst of the nutters coming back; as a former CU/OS I assure that editors who identify as female get bombarded with significantly more crap than male or unidentified users, particularly if they have a photo on their userpage. There's certainly a legitimate debate to be had over whether the gender gap exists to the extent the WMF claim, and if so to what degree that's a problem, but "women statistically are more likely to attract nutters" is really not up for debate. ‑ iridescent 20:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree, sorry.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

What reason do you have to doubt iridescent's evidence? Why should we take your gut feeling over this testimony? Gamaliel (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not evidence. It's assertion. "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." (Source--for the "plagiarism" police: Christopher Hitchens.) Writegeist (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

By that logic we should also dismiss Blofeld's evidence-free assertion that this is not happening. Gamaliel (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

(inserting) I’m surprise you didn’t see that as self-evident in what I said. If I really must spell it out for you: when Iridescent makes an assertion without evidence, Dr. B (or anyone) can dismiss it without evidence. Which in turn is obviously mere assertion. And so on. Writegeist (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking precisely the same thing. His evidence is "Some people said a thing never happens", whereas we actually have people here, in this very discussion, saying that it does. It's a breathtaking display of ignorance and I-didn't-hear-that from an editor that many people respected for a long time. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia? Hostile to women? Publicly? How about those in a position to do something just inspect their navels & hope the mess goes away? Until the next time. AnonNep (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: There have been numerous articles discussing the harassment of women on Wikipedia. People such as Sue Gardner have discussed it as a serious issue. Now female victims of harassment on Wikipedia have identified it as a major problem, and you're implying that they're making it up. At this point I'm starting to wonder what exactly it would take to convince you that this is a real issue; somehow I doubt even providing your requested 10 to 20 examples will satisfy this, but here goes. I didn't include diffs on many of these because they have been revision-deleted or suppressed. It was easy to find this number of examples just to do with me; I did not need to look at other women who have been targets of gendered and sexual harassment due to their involvement on this site.

1. After my picture was used on the fundraising banners, lots of gendered harassment. Note that, to my knowledge, the men featured on the banners did not receive a similar response. [1] [2] [3] [4]
2. A link to my private Facebook account was posted on my talkpage, as well as in other places around the internet (4chan, Encyclopedia Dramatica, reddit)
3. Comments telling me to edit less and make more sandwiches, and suggesting that people will not donate unless the banners feature nude photos of me.
4. Comments implying I was sexually involved with Jimbo Wales.
5. People dug to find relatives of mine who had Facebook profiles with less strict privacy settings, and shared photos of me from them to various websites. Many of them were digitally altered: my face was photoshopped onto photos of porn actresses, photos of penises were pasted onto them, and in a photo of me holding my niece, she was photoshopped so she appeared black, and the photo was captioned with racial slurs and the suggestion that she was my child. Many of these were captioned so that they would appear in Google searches for my name or username.
6. Comments on my appearance in a content dispute. (Comments on appearance are a common component of gendered harassment: [5])
7. Sustained harassment via IRC from a former Wikipedian, primarily consisting of extremely crude sexual fantasies about me and another Wikipedian.
8. Sustained harassment from someone who was angry that a Wikipedia article was deleted, primarily consisting of gendered slurs and asking if I had gotten cancer yet as some karmic retribution for my actions
9. This whole situation: [6] [7]
10. Posts were made implying I was elected to the Arbitration Committee because of my appearance, my sexual involvement with Wikipedians, or because of tongue piercings
11. I've been receiving talk page messages and emails for about two months now from someone asking me to marry him, often including photos of wedding dresses he would like me to wear. Often from emails like mollywhiteismywife@[domain.com].
12. Thankspam from accounts like "I love Molly White's Breast Milk", "Molly White's Bra", "I love you Molly White", "MollyWhite s Husband", as well as comments about my appearance, my breasts, and how they would like to have sex with me.
13. A different slew of accounts with names like "IHeartGorillaWarfare" asking if I have a boyfriend, and again implying I had sex with Jimbo.
14. A few IPs telling me he knew where I lived and where I worked, making comments about my sex life and whether my coworkers are involved in it, and asking to have sex with me.
15. [8]

So, does this fit your standards of what constitutes gendered harassment, or is it still "all in my head?" GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

As an additional note, I don't think anyone is arguing that "every female editor is actively being harassed on here". Even the byline of the article that started this whole discussion is (emphasis mine) "Some female editors have been the target of harassment from their male colleagues". The argument that I'm trying to make is that women are particularly targeted. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia attracts a lot of kids, of course they'll create juvenile account names and get nasty with slurs if something is deleted or you deal with them aggressively. Every website has those sorts of juvenile editors/trolls. It is your "job" on here to be a policewoman, and as far as I can see most of the comments/actions you've received were because you enforced something against somebody, and they retaliate over a perceived injustice and look at your user page and find a way to attack you. I think it's because you're seen as a female aggressor you become an easy target for this sort of abuse. Have none of the male arb clerks and others not received abuse on here? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

There's none so blind as those who will not see. I've been on Wikipedia for 7 years, I'm fully identified and held high profile roles. Not even once have I had anything remotely like GorillaWarfare's examples, all negative commentary has been directly related to my actions. Worm^TT(talk) 09:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you think though Worm that she'd get the same level of abuse if she was just a regular editor?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that's the wrong question, because it comes with the implication that women should not be allowed to do certain things, or should just accept abuse when they do. As I say, my time on Wikipedia has been similar to GWs, just as high profile, yet I've seen absolutely zero commentary which is not directly related to my actions. Worm^TT(talk) 10:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not implying that women should not be allowed to do certain things or they should accept that sort of abuse, but I do think that if she really has a problem with abuse in her position then take down the photograph and don't identify as female.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

So, you agree that simply having the photograph up and identifying as female will lead to increased abuse for her position? Worm^TT(talk) 10:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, of course, it makes her an easy target for disgruntled banned editors to attack her and say hurtful things. In her position. She should never have to hide her identity and should be proud of who she is, but as John Carter says there are sickos on the web who'll get at her. If she was a regular content editor though and not regularly enforcing against people she'd not get all that abuse.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

And differently targeted. Almost all harassment of men that I am aware of is very closely related to or as a result of their own actions, primarily on-wiki, rather than simply for being male or for an attribute of their appearance. I have to say though, the idea that tongue piercings could be at all relevant to arbcom elections is mind boggling! Thryduulf (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that it's mind-boggling. The implication is that I have been fellating those who voted for me, and you'll see from my other examples that "she's sexually involved with Wikipedians" is a fairly common trope at this point. Attempting to discount a woman's contributions or achievements by suggesting she's slept with people to make it happen is a fairly prime example of gendered harassment, and one that many Wikipedians are all-too-familiar with by this point. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah, I hadn't linked the tongue piercing comments with the allegations of sexual activity comments (which I'm well aware of the existence of, sadly). Without that context, it seemed a rather odd thing to suggest was relevant to anyone's voting. Thryduulf (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I see from your clarification that you didn't mean your "mind-boggling" comment this way, Thryduulf, but it set me off on this train of thought, so I'm going to plunk my response here even though it's speaking more "generally" than "to you": the saddest thing to me in this discussion is that it's not mind-boggling at all to any of the people - many of whom are probably reading this thread now, and even more of whom don't even know this discussion is going on - who have been subjected to similar treatment. In my years on Wikipedia I've had gender-based harassment directed at me very much like Molly's in some ways. Each case is different, of course, but there has been template vandalism insulting my appearance, offwiki commentary about who I'm sleeping with and whether I advance my onwiki "career" by sleeping with men, a troll once registered a domain identifying me by my full name and used it to host content going into graphic detail about my dox and my supposed sexual history, another one once sent me an email threatening to "reveal to the world" that I used a pseudonym (this one with rather dark irony - I mean hey, who uses a pseudonym on the internet, what, are people going to dox you or something? ...Oh) The list goes on from there. So none of it - nothing Molly has described and almost nothing I see other victims describe anymore - is at all mind-boggling to me, even though it might be to people who have been fortunate enough to not have been victimized or had people they personally know victimized. And that's sort of the point: to the rest of us - and oh, there are a lot of us, more than you'd ever be aware unless you happened to know us, because "someone wrote 'fanfic' about my sexual history" is not something I often bring up in conversations - it's the same old, depressing, horrifying news. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree that it is likely that the percentage of pervs and vandals and harassers is probably as high here as it is in a lot of other websites. And, as someone who has seen some of the comments made by some others posted at WO and elsewhere, there is good reason to think that some of the "enemies" female editors here might have at other web sites is probably higher than the amount of harassment males get. We tend to have more male editors than female ones, and a lot of sometimes disugustingly foul-mouthed INTJs and others of a perhaps somewhat antisocial nature. This makes it, unfortunately, more likely that some of that large number of regulars and others here are going to target the females, who tend to be the most frequent targets anyway.

Some of us guys are, let's face it, scum. And a lot of those scum are really into the internet as a social outlet. I wish that weren't the case, and I regret that some of the declared females have had to put up with as much as they have. Unfortunately, hoping no one sees this as a copout, I actually don't have a clue how to institute changes to make this site any safer overall for female editors than the internet in general is. I wish that weren't the case though, and would love to see some ideas. John Carter (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the diffs. Something I've always found amazing is that for any other sort of claim, diffs are an expected part of the process, but when talking about gender-based harassment, we're expected to take the complaints on faith -- this is literally the first time in ten years that I've seen a complaint about gender-based harassment that was backed by diffs. --Carnildo (talk) 01:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Although I did play ball here, this is not something I want to encourage for three major reasons:

1. I had to skate fairly close to the lines when I discussed the harassment that has since been revision-deleted or suppressed—administrators and oversighters are expected not to share information that has been hidden, so this makes for an unfortunate catch-22 when it comes to providing diffs. This is the same reason the community has more or less accepted things like oversight, checkuser, and ArbCom blocks on the "just believe us" rationale.
2. Posting diffs of the harassment only draws attention to information that the victims might not necessarily want eyes on. If I was expected to post a diff of someone posting a link to my personal Facebook account, or a link to someone sharing doctored images of my face on porn actresses, I most likely wouldn't.
3. Requiring diffs completely ignores the issue of harassment that begins due to on-wiki issues but then moves offsite. This can be some of the most vicious harassment—people finding your personal email address, contacting your family, posting photos of you elsewhere, etc. We have no functional way of dealing with this harassment currently, and requiring diffs only worsens this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yep. The only onwiki item from "my" list that I provided above (the template vandalism, which transcluded insults, etc against me all over the project) has since been oversighted...because it contained, if I recall correctly (I have absolutely no idea how I would go back now and find which particular template was edited in any particular instance of this, but I assure you I remember quite vividly the mortification and feeling of helplessness, and the horror my father expressed when the troll called his home phone number, found via doxx someone else had published on me, to tell him just how and why his daughter was internet-famous), my home address and some other highly personal information. Much of the harassment people experience is just not diff-able, and what is diff-able is often so intensely personal or embarrassing that, if it hasn't already been oversighted, it's not something someone will speak about publicly if that means they have to show their shame - and it does indeed feel like a personal shame to people who have been victimised this way - to thousands of people watchlisting a page like like Jimmy's talk. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

As someone else who has been on the banner - and with more exposure than GorillaWarfare and less than Jimmy: I did not receive gendered harassment. I got a shit ton of it, mind, but none of it was because I was male. My harassment was significantly less than GW's while I was also open to exposure significantly more. The math is on her side.--Jorm (talk) 07:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I just want to say that I can confirm GW's and iridescent's assertions as a checkuser and oversighter. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• All I'll say is that it is possible for Wikipedia (like every single crowd-sourced website, ever) to have female editors that have experienced harassment (as far as I am aware, the account operated by the person who sexually harassed Lightbreather is still not blocked) and for this article to be mostly bollocks. The two are not mutually exclusive. Black Kite (talk) 01:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Lightbreather was harassed off-wiki by more than one person. One account was blocked. The holder of a second account was accused of also being involved, but despite a lengthy review of the evidence the functionaries team (Arbcom, checkusers and oversighters) did not reach consensus on whether this was so. That does not suggest that any part of the off-wiki harassment did not occur; only that the functionaries as a group did not agree there was sufficient evidence to link it to the second alleged WP account. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Lightbreather was sexually harassed on-wiki, in pretty much the same way Malik Shabazz was subjected to racial abuse, and not one thing was done about it. Indeed, the harasser has been afforded special protection by some admins, and comments I've made about the incident have been suppressed to protect the harasser from "outing". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• @GorillaWarfare: The list you give above is one of the best source documents I've seen about how women are harassed on Wikipedia. But I don't quite understand the part about Facebook. When you say it was a private Facebook site, do you mean the harasser had access to content was only readable by your friends, so that whoever was doing the access was either on that list, or else have some kind of Facebook administrator access? I mean, I doubt JTRIG was on Wikipedia's case, but if they were, that's the kind of place where they'd shine. Wnt (talk) 10:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Wnt: To be honest, I'm not entirely sure how it happened. I had configured my Facebook privacy settings so that my profile would not appear in searches. Somehow someone figured out the link to my Facebook anyway, and when I changed the URL in response, they found the new one as well. After that happened, I spent somewhere near six hours (Facebook does not make this easy) going through my list of friends and removing anyone who I didn't know very well, because I was afraid a Facebook friend was involved in the doxxing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Hmmm... I'm probably paranoid, but this is the kind of thing that makes me suspicious. Sexism is well known as one of Wikipedia's stumblingblocks, and if there were someone out there trying to hinder our site because they feel it infringes on their commercial opportunities, or for political purposes, they might exploit it, much like the FBI tried to stir up trouble between supporters of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. We expect trolls to act a certain way, sure, and there's a bit of trollish blood in many of us, but since the 90s there's always been a certain amount of reason to suspect that sometimes 'trolls' are mobilized by someone, web brigades for example, and acting with higher coordination and technical support. So I tend to seize on something like this as reason to keep that model in mind, though it's far short of proof. Wnt (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Expecting women to hide behind veil of invisibility

Attempted female "cloak of invisibility" made my talk on "non-hostile working environment" at Wikiconference USA 2015 even more unintelligible, since nobody could hear it. -- Monumenteer2014camper (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, the idea that women should not disclose their identity to protect themselves from harassment pretty much would stop the work that I'm doing at Cochrane, since it is important for myself and Cochrane affiliated contributors to disclose their affiliations to Cochrane and other research organizations. Besides that, it is offensive that you are suggesting that women need to hide under a veil of invisibility to avoid being harassed. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Please don't twist my words. I said that if that sort of abuse is genuine in her position then if she really finds it intolerable then she could simply avoid being a target and not disclose her gender identity. This isn't a regular female contributor to wikipedia, she's somebody who's job it is on here to enforce things against people, and a volunteer job at that. No, she should not have to hide who she is and should be proud of it, as I said above, but when dealing with nasty vandals and disgruntled young oiks, she is going to become a target. You can't stop people from attacks, even if you quickly stamp it out. But you can do things to minimise trouble and protect women on here from that sort of thing, which I believe affects a minority.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't say I'm shocked to return to this discussion to find that Dr. Blofeld has shifted gears from "women are not harassed on Wikipedia because they're female" to "okay well maybe you were but maybe if you hadn't been so aggressive..." You seem to have made up your mind on the matter, and despite two women bringing up their own experiences with harassment based on their gender, insist that it is somehow something we're asking for by daring to participate in parts of the site where men are able to participate much more safely. The problem here is not that I'm open about being a woman, or that I have a photograph on my userpage, or that I'm an arbitrator. The problem is that women are not able to participate in the same areas of the site as men without receiving harassment like I've detailed above, and rather than wanting to change that or acknowledging that it's a problem, you're suggesting I just leave it to the men. I am fortunate in that I am able to weather the harassment fairly well—I have understanding family and friends, and I don't worry as much as some people have to about harassment affecting my employment. I recognize that I could probably decrease the level of harassment if I stopped arbitrating, stopped editing outside of the mainspace, or stopped editing Wikipedia entirely. But I should not have to, and the fact that I would either have to stop participating in areas of the site that I enjoy or start hiding who I am to escape this level of harassment should not be blithely regarded as an immutable characteristic of the environment here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I concede to the fact that wikipedia is a huge website and that some women editors might have experienced things I don't know about. But I really never experience any form of sexism towards female editors I often work with from anybody, even in heated disputes. "The problem is that women are not able to participate in the same areas of the site as men without receiving harassment". Yes, I agree with that. as you've proved you've faced discrimination, I just didn't like the way it was being implied that all women editors by default, even those low profile ones quietly editing away are constantly being abused because they're female. No, I'm not suggesting that you leave being an arbitrator to a man. I personally could not care less if all of the arb members were women, I honestly don't think it matters, male and female editors I believe are equally competent in all fields of the site, but I am saying that given that it's a high pressure position and you're susceptible to abuse you could minimise what you get thrown at you by not disclosing your identity. You should not have to, but all the work towards female empowerment in the world is not going to stop nasty sexist little trolls from backlashing when enforced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I had my first really yucky harassment before I was an administrator when I reverted a vile edit and reported the person who made. Reverting vile edits and reporting the user is something that people do every day. Seeing this type of problem is the reason that I decided to become an administrator, arbitrator, chechuser, oversighter, and volunteer for the Fund Dissemination Committee, take a position as Wikipedian in Residence in an outside organization, and join the Inspire Campaign Gender Gap committee, be one of the founder of User Group WikiWomen, and act as an advisor to the the new Wikipedian in Residence at WVU. Part of my motivation for all the work I do (volunteer and paid) is making Wikipedia more welcoming to women and other under represented groups of people. Because there is no way that the body of work on Wikipedia will be complete and free of bias until the community is more diverse. I'm not going to hide behind a veil of invisibility, because it destructive to myself and the community for people to need to hide their identifying characteristics. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

There does seem to be a bit of a clear double-standard around here, although, I acknowledge, having only edited in certain parts of the site to a great degree, that I suppose it might be the case that the subject areas I don't know might have worse macho posturing than the areas I do know. And, yes, I suppose, my own preconceptions might be blinded by my own possible macho posturing, I dunno. As one of the old farts around here, I can still remember—to the degree I can remember anything these days, mind goes when you least expect it and all that—the rather more obvious and rather obnoxious sexism of the 60s, 70s, and 80s. For a lot of those of the boomer generation, like me, use of sexist commentary as an early resort is something we grew used to as kids, and because of that we can sometimes take unfortunately early and easy recourse to it.

So, to the extent that is a societal issue beyond wikipedia, I really don't know how to deal with it in an effective way independently here. And, from what I can remember of overheard conversations among women among themselves, and what some women have occasionally said here, women without men around can sometimes behave as badly, if not worse. Granted, we will rarely if ever see such behavior here, where men outnumber women 9-1 or something like that, but to an extent this seems to be an endemic social problem which might not lend itself to any sort of ready remedy. Unfortunately. And, once again, my apologies if this comes across as some sort of cop-out. John Carter (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

It is true that many different groups of people can be harassed because of who they are. But because it happens to other groups, too, doesn't diminish the importance of addressing the role that hostility towards women plays in perpetuating the gender gap on Wikipedia. Systemic bias in Wikipedia content is something that can't be resolved until there is a more diverse community on Wikipedia English and through out the wikimedia movement. Unfortunately, the people who publicly state that they care about addressing systemic bias are more likely to be subject to hostility since this community accepts people bad mouthing people who are working on it, and blames them for their fate. This empowers the trolls to take it to the next level of harassment. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

So, I hope everyone feels free to call me whatever they want here, but, are we really sure that expanded diversity of various sorts will reduce the amount of harassment, and or systemic bias, which is a different thing entirely, or, maybe, might it perhaps simply raise the number of factions who may engage in a broader range of incivilities, and, maybe, might it just make matters worse overall? I am the first to acknowledge that there is a tendency for some men in the West to be more uncivil than some others, or at least more obviously uncivil, but if we basically expand the incivility to more groups,will that make things better, or worse? I know that the Israel-Palestine content has a very good diversity in its editorship, and it's only had to have been addressed by ArbCom three times to date.

I would love to have this site edited only by perfectly behaved people, even knowing I would be excluded from that site almost immediately. And, basically, I think it is, more or less, an impossible dream.

Maybe I am just trying to indicate, in my regular way, that maybe pragmatism at some level, might be the more appropriate thing to act on here. Having said that, I have no real clear idea myself what the practical way to address this might be. John Carter (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that the issue of women feeling - or being told - that we need to hide behind a cloak of invisibility gets to the root of the problem. I was among the ranks of "women editors who haven't had much problem with sexism on-wiki," and what I've faced since has still been minor compared to what the women above have faced. But I am convinced that this was because I DID have the "cloak of invisibility": It may be a generational issue (I too am a boomer, thus not the under-35-women demographic most often targeted) but also because I had a gender-neutral username and downplayed my gender as much as possible. I hadn't deliberately raised my profile much on-wiki as a whole until my RfA, where I was doxxed, subjected to some truly bizarre accusations, and had some other harassment occur that has since been oversighted. I agree with those who say that editors who identify as male or gender neutral may be attacked for their actions, but not for being male. Those who openly identify as women, particularly if young, are more openly attacked with gender-based harassment. But hiding our gender isn't the way forward; the way forward is to hit the trolls who engage in sexual harassment immediately and with both barrels. Montanabw^(talk) 19:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Blofeld, just as a matter of interest; have you had people refer to you, over and over again, as female, even after you have asked them many, many times to be addressed as "he"? No? Well, take a look, where some editors proclaim that "my custom is to refer to all Wikipedia editors as "he". Talk about welcoming female editors. And I agree wholeheartedly with Sydney Poore/User:FloNight: encouraging diversity means that those who are not "white, young males" should be seen, and not hidden away. Huldra (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

A very minor technical solution to the latter problem. The solution I use is to use "they" instead of "he" or "she", if you are like me, and are forgetful sometimes. More people don't use it because they incorrectly believe that "they" should not be used as a singular pronoun. See this, for a debunking of that mistaken, but widely held view. Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I think "singular they" is ok to use, (I use it sometimes myself), but if editors clearly identify on their user-page that they are male/female; then I try to use the "right" s/he, Huldra (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Interlude: NE Ent soapbox

I believe I've passed the age of consciousness and righteous rage,

I've found that just surviving was a noble fight

I once believed in causes too, had my pointless point of view

— Billy Joel, Prelude/Angry Young Man [9]

• Worldwide:
  • "These things are universal. There is not one single country where women can feel absolutely safe." Taina Bien-Aime, executive director, Equality Now.
  • "Despite great strides made by the international women’s rights movement over many years, women and girls around the world are still married as children or trafficked into forced labor and sex slavery. They are refused access to education and political participation, and some are trapped in conflicts where rape is perpetrated as a weapon of war. "
• Internet:
  • "Will the Internet ever be a safe place for women? This question might seem naïve. If you are a woman with an online presence, after all, you may have grown so accustomed to Internet harassment that you cannot even imagine an alternate future."
  • (On twitter) "Feminine usernames incurred an average of 100 sexually explicit or threatening messages a day. Masculine names received 3.7." (Hess)

Note that Hess, quoting Danielle Citron, discusses at length, the conflict between technical measures to stop harassment and privacy, as advocated by Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF). Most importantly here, as we all know WMF prioritizes privacy a la EFF. Point: issues raised here go far beyond anything Wikpedia caused or can control.

• Wikipedia
  • How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women

The implication being it's not hostile to men? As a volunteer with 1,000+ WP:WQA and 2,600+ WP:ANI edits, I will orignal researchingly tell you flat out hostility is not unique to women. Some editors in conflict will throw any scrap of personal information into a pissing contest. For example, in this single edit, a person unhappy with an arbcom decision manages to impugn the arbitrator's a) education status, b) chosen profession, and c) country of origin. This is not to say it's equivalent to gender based harassment; however, a hierarchy of victimhood is not something I'm particularly interested in.

I'd love to change the world

But I don't know what to do

So I'll leave it up to you

— Alvin Lee, I'd Love to Change the World[10]

This I know -- Wikipedia is huge, with 120,034 active users, there are 14,408,041,122 possible one to one interactions. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable a content editor like User:Dodger67 (~10% Wikipedia:) or a WP:FA focused User:Dr Blofeld will not have seen personal evidence of misogyny. Nonetheless, they deserve to be treated with respect; you don't make Wikipedia less hostile to anybody with hostility. Sure, you can make a section of Wikipedia a politically correct "no speech" zone, but silencing folks won't win hearts and minds, won't make anything better. NE Ent 14:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

References

• The thought processes that lead to grandstanding on men, somehow, as victims of Wikipedia, who need urgent respect, & less hostility just leaves me speechless. Really. AnonNep (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

He's right though. Instead of focusing on Molly, we need to talk about the fact that it is MEN who both give and take the vast majority of the insults here. It is the men who deserve a WikiProject for them and a task force focused on getting more men editing here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.47.131 (talk) 23:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, to give NE Ent credit, he was on the scene for a non-female case, one of the first big sexual discrimination/harassment cases on Wikipedia, and was one of many who helped to lay the groundwork for some of Wikipedia's core principles on the subject, like:

• Complaining about harassment with anything but ironclad evidence is a more serious offense than participating in it.
• A complete "veil of invisibility" is the only excuse not to have your private life dredged up in Wikipedia disputes.
• Outing editors to pierce that veil can legitimately be done for the most trivial or technical of reasons.
• Even the most outrageous false accusations and highly coordinated offsite badgering is no excuse for leniency when the victim gets even slightly angry.
• The victim of harassment may be partially rehabilitated, but will never be forgiven.
• Even the most outstanding history of prolific, helpful, high quality editing is worth absolutely nothing.
• Upholding these principles is a royal road to ArbCom (as a member of the committee, that is).

I am loath to mention the precedent, since nothing good will come of doing so, but it is actually a much clearer-cut example of what is wrong with Wikipedia's approach to sexism than Lightbreather's case Wnt (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Block of Eric Corbett

• Oh, and since I've just noticed it, whoever it was that suggested (presumably off-line) that Kirill block Eric (Kirill's first block for a year) for responding to a thread making false statements about him; you're a complete fucking idiot, and so is Kirill for falling for your shit. Next time, have the guts to stand by your blocks yourself. Do you take us all for idiots? No, obviously you do. Silly of me. Black Kite (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

This is Eric's 6th block in 2015, and he clearly violated his topic ban. He has asked that he not be unblocked and stated that he will not return to Wikipedia. It's about time. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps you could have a party to celebrate whilst, yet again, the actual harassers of women here get away scot-free. Black Kite (talk) 01:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

This is so silly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.130.12 (talk) 02:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Eric Corbett is an equal opportunities employer when it comes to being rude to other Wikipedians. The attempt by The Atlantic to portray him as a misogynist is sloppy journalism. It is ironic that the topic ban has been interpreted in a way which prevents him from defending himself on-wiki.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I want to commend GorillaWarfare for documenting the harassment she has received, which is vile and ugly. I monitored and observed a tiny percentage of it after her photo was used in a fundraiser, and it was constant and despicable for a couple of weeks. This kind of conduct makes me ashamed to be a male and I simply cannot comprehend why any man would conduct himself this way. We must do a better job of putting a stop to this disgusting misbehavior.

It would be useful, though, if journalists would engage in fact checking and allowing people criticized in their articles a chance to comment. Articles riddled with basic errors and sweeping generalizations are not all that useful in the end. They may do more harm than good. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's clear abuse, but do you think she'd be treated like that if she regularly edited wikipedia and wasn't involved in enforcement? I think if you act aggressively on wikipedia you get stuff thrown at you anyway, and if you're a young female with a photograph up you become an easy target and it can bring out the worst side of juvenile male editors. I just don't like articles like that Atlantic one implying that all women are subject to constant abuse on here because they're female. And I don't like the way it is being implied that Eric is just like the types who doctor images and make other disgusting comments. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Not all abuse and hostility is visible on Wikipedia. Edits get reverted, rev'deleted and oversighted, emails are sent that other editors do not see, threads are created on off-wiki discussion boards bashing editors and sometimes revealing personal information.

Again, I'm not saying that male editors do not also get harassed but I do want to point out that not all harassment of Wikipedia editors is public and visible, in fact, like covering up graffiti as soon as it is done, abusive remarks are usually covered up and go unacknowledged in order to WP:DENY. The standard advice regarding trollish behavior is "Ignore it and it will stop" so I'd argue that there is more that occurs than what is noticed by other editors. Some of the female editors who are vocal on Wikipedia about harassment often find themselves to be further targeted and even facing blocks. For women, the pressure to, as ArbCom said at one point, "lower your profile" and also not draw attention to the harassment is pretty strong because when one does speak out, the situation often gets worse than it was before. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I do think that if you act aggressively on wikipedia you get stuff thrown back at you, and if you keep a lower profile and avoid drama you can avoid the more serious forms of abuse. That does not excuse the sorts of comments and abuse Gorilla has received or make it acceptable, but as far as I can see it is not true that most female editors have to deal with that level of abuse. I think there is a difference between the odd childish vandal/sock making sexual remarks on a talk page compared to a regular male editor or a group of male editors who constantly harass and abuse women on wikipedia purely because they're female. The impression I get from that article is that they think regular, very active male editors spend their time going about the site picking on women and I never see it in the line of work I do.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you get that a) it is not your perception that matters here and b) your constant bludgeoning dismissal of the problem is precisely the environment that allows worse abuse to occur and is abusive in and of itself? FFS you say 'prove it with diffs' and victims step forward and do so and then you dismiss them by saying it is their fault. Despicable. Harassment of women happens. If you can not do something constructive then do not put up roadblocks with walls of text denying it even happens. Doing that one thing will improve the environment just a little bit. Jbh^Talk 12:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say it was their fault, but I am saying that if she was a regular quiet content contributor she'd never get that level of abuse. The women editors I know have never had anything sexist thrown at them, so why do you honestly think Gorilla has had to deal with all of that?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Really? Because she's young, cute and the teenage trolls like to dribble. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "I'm not saying it is her fault only that it would not have happened it she behaved differently" Wow! The cluelessness... it burns! The whole freaking point is that she should not have to be a "quite content contributor" to avoid sexually inappropriate comments and worse. She should be able to be as annoying, bossy, intransigent, high profile, active, knock whatever heads need knocking or anything else she wants to be here and not have people sexually harass her. (Not imputing those characteristics just illustrating) Do you understand that your comments are roughly equivalent to "well she should not have been wearing that short skirt and been out so late"?

Ideally no one should be required to modify their behavior out of fear of sexual attack, that is what we are speaking of here - sexual attack. Our world is a pretty shitty place so that fear is justified in many cases. The idea is to make this place as bit safer by punishing the abusers consistently and not, as you have been doing, providing excuses for the abuse, ("... if you keep a lower profile...") or denying it happens (..."I don't see it"...) or much worse - trivializing it "...childish vandal...". Right now your attitude is part of the problem. You need to recognize that. If you can not do that then at least apply enough introspection to understand that you have no understanding of the problem and are missing something and therefore should probably avoid commenting on what you do not comprehend. Lack of empathy and understanding on this issue is not, by itself, bad but constantly and verbosely waving that ignorance about is. Jbh^Talk 14:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, so now I'm to blame for all of the sexist problems on the site. Eric and myself are to blame for it all!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• I have no comment on Eric. But, yes your attitude and those who share it are a major part of the problem here. That what you state above seems to be sarcasm rather than understanding is sad. That you do not understand that dismissing and trivializing genuine harm contributes to the environment that allows that harm, and worse, is sad. That you would rather argue against the existence of a problem rather than helping address the issue by, at a minimum, simply stopping talking is, well, more than sad, it is abusive. I know Wikipedia culture frowns on personal characterizations of behavior but what you have been doing on this thread is bigoted and abusive. You are re-victimizing victims by dismissing and trivializing their complaints. You have derailed a thread that could have been used to address the issue into polemic about whether harassment occurs and if it does then, well they should not have been so active. The debate has moved beyond whether there is a problem - recognize that - the question is how can Wikipedia address the problem in its own space. My firm opinion is one step is to not accept any editor denying that there is a problem. Call them on their bullshit and tell them to stop it. So... stop it. Jbh^Talk 16:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Did The Atlantic make any attempt to contact Eric Corbett for a comment before publishing this article? Sadly Eric cannot tell us because he has been blocked for a month for replying to this thread on Jimbo's talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• This incident is increasingly looking like previous ones involving Lawrence Summers and Tim Hunt. In all of these cases, the mainstream media worked itself into a lather over alleged sexism by the people involved. On closer inspection, things were not so clear cut. The Atlantic seems to have decided that Eric Corbett is guilty as charged, without giving him a right of reply, which would be standard journalistic practice.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• To be fair to the Atlantic itself, this doesn't actually look like a piece of journalism, it just looks like a mildly tweaked version of whatever it was that the Wikipedia editor involved told or sent her. Black Kite (talk) 08:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• • As I understand it, the article was written after interviewing at least two female editors (GorillaWarfare and Keilana, possibly others too) several years before the Lightbreather case even began. Your supposition is therefore incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
    • First of all, I didn't say that's what it was, I said that's what it looks like - which it does. Secondly, if you are correct, I would have expected the journalist to fact-check the article with GW and Keilana before publishing it. Hence, poor journalism either way. Black Kite (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
    • So it was pre-written, long before the involvement of the first editor they name check? Nor did they get in touch with Eric to fact check the simplest of errors? That's very lazy journalism. As others have said, Eric is an equal opportunities insulter. WM certainly has a problem around women, there is a problem with Eric, but these are not the same problem. To block Eric after this incident reflects badly on WP, and (unwarrantedly) badly on Eric too. It's not quite as bad as Commons, where it's OK for admins to stalk female editors to their homes and they'll have admin permissions re-instated afterwards against a WMF action, just to show how independent Commons is - but it's still bad.

There needs to be effort to improve the editing environment for all around here, and I doubt if Eric can play any part in any such "teenage boy idiot amelioration task force" (the problem comes from the 4chan culture of those starting it, not the gender of their favoured targets). That's still a long way from blaming Eric for the problem though, as has just happened here. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• This is not accurate. Although I have heard that the comments from Sarah Stierch were taken from a two-year-old interview, I was interviewed for this in August. As for fact checking with me, the journalist sent me the two small sections in which I was directly mentioned to check them for errors before publishing. I was able to correct a small error in one of them before the article was published, but I was not given the entire draft. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• I believe it would be extraordinarily unusual for you to have been shown a draft of the entire article prior to publication. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• Obviously it would be hard for them to pre-write an article before the events described, but it does have the feeling of something where parts of it were written in one context and parts in a much later one. It's odd (and poor) though that Eric was given no opportunity to check or reply, even though you were. It's a bad article and unbalanced against Eric - he's not an admin, he has very little responsibility for anything that happens here beyond his own actions, yet describing him as an admin labels him as jointly culpable for any failures of site management.Andy Dingley (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• Well, it looks like it's had the intended result (even if it did have to involve reaching out to an ex-Arb who's blocked no-one since 2014 to actually perform the block), so I'm guessing everyone involved must be really happy. Well done, everyone! Black Kite (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• I think Wikipedia is taking some serious chances here. Corbett wrote comments defending himself after a very misleading representation of his actions in a major magazine. Instead of letting his rebuttal be heard, Wikipedia has blocked him through a high-level decision based on a ban on speaking about gender disparities, and his replies have been removed as "comments of a blocked user" [11] to the effect that he never used the word "cunt" to describe any woman. To me it looks like you've loaded him full up with false light and libel claims, and since the Atlantic is involved, there could end up being a huge amount of money in this. Wikipedia seriously needs to step back from the brink here, NOW. I'm not saying you have to unblock him but for God's sake try to stop portraying him as someone who calls women cunts to make them feel bad. Wnt (talk) 10:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I am not happy about his replies to accusations/comments about him being removed - especially as he made them before he was blocked. His later comments were a violation of his topic ban, but personally I regard his putting the record straight as being an allowable exception. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

This block might, in fact, be a reaction to The Atlantic article and claims that Wikipedia doesn't take harassment seriously. But a block of Eric Corbett will not solve the problem of making Wikipedia a less hostile environment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, precisely Liz, because Eric is not the person who is abusing female editors here. However, it is clear that certain people needed that block after the last one failed spectacularly, so we find ourselves here. I'm sure they're very proud of themselves, but I equally suspect that it might come back to bite them. Black Kite (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

To be fair to The Atlantic, Eric Corbet did call her a cunt. Saying "If you don't want to be called a cunt, don't act like one" is calling someone a cunt. Pretending otherwise is sleazy, puerile sophistry. Eric, if you don't want to be called a pathetic little shit-stirring troll, don't act like one. Eric has announced for the fourteenth time (really, fourteen; Hex at WO counted) that he's leaving for good because of this gross injustice that's been done to him. Sure Eric. And the sycophants and sexists are all mewling on his talk page. Mewl sycophants, mewl. Do it enough and he just might relent. Again. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The full statement that came from is linked earlier in that thread, and in context its clear that Lightbreather is not meant to be the referent of "you". Eric was arguing against the idea of civility as a policy, and it's pretty obviously a generic you. Rhoark (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Ugh. True. Thank you. Struck. I was involved in that discussion but haven't read it since. Eric just threw a c-bomb into the civility discussion. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure you've said something yourself at one time in the heat of the moment. Do people continue to attack you for it years on and attack you in major magazines about it? Do you not think that Eric might actually have feelings like other human beings and that he'd be expected to defend himself here?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I tend to own it when I do. The issue here is his "Oh, I didn't call her a cunt" nonsense. As for not wanting to be called a sexist troll in an international journal, if you don't want ... Never mind. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

There are men who genuinely hate or abuse women and vice versa. Eric certainly doesn't fit the bill. Most of the people he's worked with on here have been female, and most of them think very highly of him. The Atlantic conveniently forgot to mention that. In fact I'd argue that Eric gets on better with female editors generally speaking than male editors. He doesn't like the gender gap project and militant feminist types on here, they turn me cold too, but this serial abuser of women he aint.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I realise the different usages of "cunt" on either side of the Atlantic but, according to his own good advice, if you don't want to be called one, don't act like one, and he was acting like a misogynist from the perspective of our American colleagues. I know he gets on fine with some of the women who thrive here. I've thought all along he's the wrong target for an anti-misogyny campaign. Choosing him as the poster boy for such a campaign sets you up for failure. He's an equal opportunity insulter and belittler and should be sanctioned, appropriately, for insulting and belittling, regardless of the sex or gender of the target. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I'm just glad that Wikipedia has a large contingent of men who are have expert opinions on misogyny. 👌👌 Sceptre ^(talk) 11:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

My irony meter just broke.213.205.251.206 (talk) 12:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Additionally, the irony of this whole issue is that we, of course, have multiple reliable sources saying that Wikipedia has a misogyny problem but we've got tons of original research in every discussion about how there isn't. 🐸☕ Sceptre ^(talk) 13:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

There are multiple issues here. The issue at hand is the block of an editor who defended himself against what he felt were unfair attacks against him. The humane, kind procedure would have been to warn him, a very simple way to proceed. As a community if we implicitely give permission to block in this kind of situation - to allow ourselves to behave with out kindness and fairness because an editor is not liked by some - we erode our own collaborative system. We aren't bots; we can judge and detect the necessary checks and balances which make the system work, but which as well pertain to dealing with other human beings. I respect Kirill but I think this was a mistake. OK. End of rant.(Littleolive oil (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC))

LO's argument is that Corbett wasn't warned. I say that a topic ban from ArbCom and 5 previous blocks this year are enough warning. Enough is enough. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Corbett knows not to stick his oar in; he's very deliberately skirting his arbitration restriction. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kirill Lokshin: has been doing a lot of assessments lately, generally not really high-profile editing. On that basis, I think it is certainly possible that he saw the comment here on his own, but I think it would make sense that if we are going to discuss his actions that maybe we give him a chance to get involved, which is why I am pinging him. If there were outside factors which we aren't privy to, that might be worthwhile noting as well. John Carter (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

There are multiple issues here. Lightbreather, the most recent Corbett "Cunt" comment recipient, was also trying to defend herself from attacks but, Arbcom decided, rules are rules & she ended up with a 1 year ban. During that process (& leading up to it) more than a few strident Corbett-istas seemed to be pursuing a 'Burn the Witch!' agenda against Lighbreather (& CarolMoore - also now banned) all the while insisting 'There's no sexism on Wikipedia'. Multiple issues indeed! The 'oh but what about poor Eric' mantra is a very tired old tune. AnonNep (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yet another one who states that Corbett's "cunt" comment was about Lightbreather. It wasn't. You may note the people above who have struck their comments. Re-stating it over and over again doesn't make it any more true. Stop, please. Black Kite (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say he called her a "cunt". I chose the phrase '"Cunt" comment recipient' for a reason. AnonNep (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• The journalist in question has performed shoddy reporting by only asking one side of the story for feedback before publishing. Under U.S. law, the press has certain freedoms that protect it from litigation so long as they try to get the story right, even if the end result is less than 100% correct. Nevertheless, regardless of what anyone feels, Corbett has been denied due process in our court here on this matter by not being allowed to voice his disagreement and or rebuttal of what was published in The Atlantic.--MONGO 15:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

"Corbett has been denied due process in our court" - That's total horsefeathers, Mongo. A topic ban from arbcom and 5 previous blocks this year. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm talking about this incident where he was incorrectly called an administrator and where his infamous comment was once again taken out of context. That "news" piece is simply shoddy journalism and by denying Corbett the right to rebut the inaccuracies is denying him due process.--MONGO 16:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Due process does not mean infinite process. Enough is enough. Due process is meant to protect *all of us*. He clearly defied his topic ban, again. He got blocked, again. That's due process. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Horseshit. That's a kangaroo court for you.--MONGO 18:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not too happy it was implied that I only filed the case against LB because I've collaborated with Eric in the past. The author did not attempt to speak to me either. Karanacs (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Two wrongs do not make a right. Further, this is not a "poor Eric" comment; this is an "extend fairness to everyone no matter who or we will be poorer as a community" comment. An editor, and I don't care who, was accused of actions, rightly or wrongly, that were pretty foul and he tried to defend himself. He could have been warned that he had said enough and that speaking further would be blockable. That's it. Simple and fair. Nothing is lost by warning editors and nothing is gained by blocking with out a warning unless the intent is to catch somebody in a moment when their guard is down. Everyone should be warned specific to the blockable action, always. As for Lightbreather. What WP does not have is a good appeal process for either arbitration or AE, one in which every aspect of a case is reviewed. An editor who feels they have been mistreated has no recourse. And believe me blocks and sanctions can be applied without any good reason because editors are not liked; the system as we have it now breeds false narratives and railroading. This is why I would extend fairness to everyone not just those we "like". Had Eric continued to post after being warned then he clearly was pushing the boundaries of his ban. Now all we know is that an admin assumed he was deliberately bypassing the restrictions. We should never assume where building false narratives is a norm on this site because every time we do we further the effectiveness of railroading and the creation of " stories". An unfairness here strengthens the possibility for larger mistakes elsewhere. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC))

I am not one of Eric's biggest fans, but I do see two problems with this block. 1) Jimbos page is generally a safe space, where even fully community banned editors have been able to come and speak. 2) This thread was largely about Eric. Its rehashing old things mostly, but I think philosophically it should fall into WP:BANEX. For these reasons I think a warning/trout/ignore were probably a better path. On the other hand, Eric has quite often flaunted the ban intentionally, and his fan club on here and on his page are certainly performing true to form with the gnashing of teeth, rending of garments, etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

For the record; I have had one interaction with Eric and it was not pleasant so perhaps we can stop with the Eric fan club assumptions. The point is about neutrality and scrupulous fairness when dealing with everyone.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC))

Littleolive oil I didn't mention you, nor was I thinking of you in my comment, but as the bard says "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" Gaijin42 (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, I am unsure why you changed the indenting of my comment to make it appear I was replying to you, when I was not. [12] Gaijin42 (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I apologize . I indented because you had not. I had no intention but to make the indent easier to deal with. Please feel free to undo my edit.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC))

Corbett has had enough bias in his favour to last him a life-time. Any admin who reversed an AE block on any other person would be desysopped within the night, not retroactively cleared of wrongdoing to protect the encyclopaedia's Designated Dissenter. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, you'd know plenty about being desysopped (and banned, for that matter). Wouldn't you? Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Many, many editors (including yours truly) have been blocked for venturing to participate when they and their work were being discussed on this page. The difference between those editors and Eric Corbett is that the other editors were volunteers without fan clubs, and the safety of this “safe space” is reserved for those with power and privilege. Little people ought instead to lower their profile. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I think when you are being discussed in international media and ts framed to discredit an exception should be made. A large problem here though is EC supporters. Every time he does something boneheaded and the bum rush starts I devalues its effect. Used appropriately it is a powerful tool but misused it further taints. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein: My comment above has nothing to do with fan clubs. If I get in an argument with someone about the death penalty and he says "if you don't want to get lethally injected, don't kill people," is that an accusation of murder? Corbett ticked people off by abusing Jimbo, and they were mad, that is understandable. That doesn't justify trying to make him out as the face of sexism on Wikipedia. When you deny him the right even to dispute that, you're really asking for trouble. And the problem I have here is that if Arbcom's centralized control ends up meaning that the "safe harbor" CDA provisions don't protect Wikipedia and the WMF is being told to pay hundreds of thousands in damages, we are not going to hear Arbitrators eating crow, saying that their system failed, we should go back to all editors being equal, no more deleted versions or oversighting or blocking, just editors exercising mass democracy like a giant editable 4chan. No, before the opposing lawyers they've invited in with their actions have even finished totting up the bill, they'll be telling us the answer is more centralized control. They'll get in some suit as a consultant for a few hundred thou and he'll page through a few discussions and tell us the answer is we have to hire some other suit he used to play squash with at Yale to decide what people can say or not, what we can articles about or not. And so on. It'll not work at ending the lawsuits, but it will open doors for companies that know the right people. Wnt (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• I note that Kirill has still not enlightened us as to whom instructed him to block Corbett. It's obvious from his editing and admin history that he didn't suddenly decide to appear at AE for the first time himself, which leaves us with a smaller pool of suspects. Anyone? Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Isn't this just casting WP:ASPERSIONS? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• So it is, but that's really nothing new. For the record, I do keep an eye on discussions that take place on this page, even if I generally have better things to do with my time than trying to wade into them. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• For the record Eric's block lasted a day, he is now unblocked by another admin. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The Atlantic messed up, and now an inaccurate meme is being spread further. Corbett did have a right to defend himself on this one, as false information was being spread. I agree with the statement that "Eric certainly doesn't fit the bill" as a man who hates or abuses women, and yes, "he's the wrong target for an anti-misogyny campaign" kudos to the person who said, "WM certainly has a problem around women, there is a problem with Eric, but these are not the same problem." It's odd, I am both a pretty strong feminist and simultaneously a member of the so-called "Corbett fan club." I am neither a "syncophant" nor (obviously) a "sexist" - a nod to Anthonyhcole for understanding "c-gate" in its proper context. Corbett is too curmudgeonly at times, but people also shouldn't bait him and keep the false meme alive that he's some sort of misogynist troll. He is defended by the "fan club" not when he insults people, but when he gets targeted for things he didn't do. He's a scapegoat because he keeps coming back. Montanabw^(talk) 20:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

as an aside to the above, one problem that contributes to this mixup is that some individuals use their status in a protected class as a sword instead of a shield—The wounds of Lightbreather and CMDC were, sad to say, mostly self-inflicted. The problem wasn't sexism, at least not initially. The problem was they didn't look at their own grenade-lobbing —For example, when I made a rather pointed suggestion about how the GGTF could do a better job, CMDC attacked me rather viciously and implied I was a "man telling us what to do." I also tried a couple times to help Lightbreather, but finally gave up because I just couldn't get through the wall of outrage Lightbreather had built. Ideology is not the same as biology, and sociology exists to determine the difference. (sigh) Montanabw^(talk) 20:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Bravo, Montanabw. This is probably the most sensible thing said during the discussion so far, which I suppose is why it's gotten no response.

Trying to synthesize the various anecdotes recounted here, I think it's fair to say that 1) editors in general who work on things that are non-controversial by and large don't get harassed, sexually or otherwise and 2) female editors who carry out "controversial" and high-profile actions are subjected to a degree of abuse that male editors are not, because their gender is perceived as being an opening for attack in a way that it is not for males. (I haven't seen it discussed much, but I would tend to assume that the same is true for openly LGBT editors doing the same.)

I'm using the word "controversial" in a morally neutral sense here to mean, roughly, "anything that's going to stir up a large number of people." Sometimes, those actions that stir people up are good and necessary for the encyclopedia, and need to be done. That's why the idea that female editors should keep their heads down and not carry them out is unreasonable; some of the people the community most trusts to do these things are women, and they should not be expected to endure harassment vastly in excess of that experienced by their male colleagues in so doing. On the other hand, sometimes those actions stir people up because they're, well, wrong. Lightbreather was a terrible editor: a perusal of the evidence page from the ArbCom case that banned her will quickly reveal that she was unable to constructively acknowledge views that differed from hers, and regularly sought out personal quarrels with other editors. Her quarrelsomeness does not justify her harassment, but neither does her harassment justify her escaping sanction for her own misbehavior, as some have suggested above. I think part of the reason some people are still locked in harassment-is-not-a-thing mode is because of the tacit suggestion that if harassment was acknowledged, it would grant general absolution to the person being harassed. Choess (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that Eric Corbett has been unfairly scapegoated to the extent that he has become an unwitting symbol of these kinds of problems on the encyclopedia. But he and many members of his "fan club" are largely to blame for this (though you are not one of them, to my knowledge), as they are the ones loudly obstructing attempts to deal with the problems not caused by Corbett, and a number of them harass anyone who even suggests that Corbett be held accountable for what he has actually done. Gamaliel (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I think Eric's insistence on speaking his own mind exactly as he pleases, without fear or favor, is admirable in many contexts, but isn't really a virtue in the collaborative environment. So, not a "fan club" member, but I'm afraid I have a rather cynical take on the business: Eric's been designated Chief Misogynist precisely because he's representative of much more complex phenomena in Wikipedia (authority, the balance between content creation and communication) which aren't going to disappear in a hurry. So if he can be labeled a misogynist, his refusal to recant and the existence of support for him can all become "evidence" that Wikipedia is in the grip of sexists and justification for increasingly disruptive actions against them.

I haven't followed closely enough to see who's in favor of what solution to the gendergap, but it's worth remembering that the "fan club" exists in large part because of the way the civility policy has been weaponized to further personal feuds. If people working on this choose to bypass the hard problems (technical, legal) in favor of aggressive tone policing (easy within the current infrastructure), I'd say they stand a good chance of making many people here roll their eyes at "sexism" the way they do now at "civility". What you see as obstructionism may actually be institutional memory telling you that people have tried analogous things and run into big problems. Choess (talk) 12:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with most of the above from Montana to Gamaliel above. And I could add a few other names who might inspire a degree of knee-jerk responses of the "but s/he's a [good editor]" variety. I think there are a few lightning rod editors who basically just give some people, both the knee-jerk attackers and knee-jerk defenders, something to do which makes them feel useful and lets them think that they have done something positive by making comments. Finding some way to basically get rid of the enablers of all sorts and dramah mongers would be wonderful. John Carter (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

No editor should be placed under any gag order, IMHO. Being restricted from talkpages (particularly your own) should be discouraged. GoodDay (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

An apologetic note to the women who've received abuse

While I still believe that it's a malicious article and I think it's in poor taste to create a storm here, and that there are certain people on here who relish this sort of thing for their agenda/Eric bashing, not to mention certain editors above who seem to enjoy turning the tables and treating me as one of the culprits (which was disgusting), I admit to being a bit too sure of myself on how women might be treated on here as it is a big site and there's over 200 other wikipedias. I did ask about half a dozen women editors out of curiosity a while back and none of them stated that they'd ever had a problem on wikipedia with it, and I have been here since 2006 and have never seen anything, except a comment directed at Rational observer a while back. So I certainly got the impression that it was an imaginary problem and that serious levels of abuse don't occur, distinguished from the typical bullying and nasty comments regularly delivered on here. However, since I have received several emails indicating that at recent events dozens of women have spoken up about the problem and that in fact most of the women in places have reported abuse. And not just from the more aggressive/admin type editors, from regular women who identify as a woman and produce content here. I did not know this, as I never see it happen on here and I've been here almost ten years, and I've not been to events where editors discuss this sort of thing. I do wish that blatant sexist abuse on here was reported and that the problem was made more visible without embarrassing those who are targetted, particularly if from regulars, and that women editors are respected enough to be given positions on here without being targeted. I think some of the things I said were taken out of context, particularly that women should have to hide behind a veil. I don't think that, but I do think that there needs to be something in place to stop it happening to the more vulnerable editors who do some of the administrative activities on here, perhaps a spam filter would help I don't know. So basically I'm saying, I respect that many women on here have encountered problems, and certainly don't want to diminish that, abuse is abuse, but I certainly still think that this sort of thing is the wrong way to raise awareness and bring about an improvement and comes across as offensive to some of us male editors who treat women well on here. We are not all officious, sexist pigs, and should not generalize about all editors, that's largely which struck a raw nerve with me here. However, something needs to change to try to reduce the embarrassment that women might get in reporting cases on here as it seems many of the cases which are reported or unreported many of us regulars don't really know about, so we can't take action or defend those who do get it because we don't know.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this. We're not all going to agree on everything, but sincere attempts like this one to see other people's points of view are the way we can work towards solving the problems facing the encyclopedia and community. Gamaliel (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think women should have to hide, either, but we should be honest about the inability of wmf / en-wiki to do very much about abuse from offside. NE Ent 17:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

That's very big of you Blofeld. I hope you now realize that denying the gender gap is in itself sexist. RO^(talk) 17:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Uhh, no, sexism is "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex." — That's the first definition to come up on Google, and I'm buying it. It's neither prejudicial, sterotyping, or discriminatory to "deny the gender gap" — that would be empirically dubious, at best, in fact clearly wrong. But that would not be sexism, that would be failure to look at evidence but instead clinging to previously-held beliefs in the face of scientific and anecdotal evidence. (The science is lousy and the gap is overstated, mind you.) Carrite (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, Carrite, and several recent pieces about racism support my point: ([13]). In its lightest form, sexism denies or invalidates the feelings of the oppressed, so denying that sexism exists is indeed an element of sexism, because it negates valid beliefs in an effort to squelch discussion of the problem. If you want to get really semantical, it might be more accurate to say that denying sexism enables the problem to continue, even if it's not blatantly sexist. RO^(talk) 17:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

RO is sadly trolling, looking for attention/an angry response I think Carrite. Best ignored. I don't fall for it. Considering that I've been involved with running a project which has started 3000 new women biographies I'd hardly call myself ignorant of the imbalance.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trolling Blofeld, but wow you sure know how to hold a grudge! Very mature of you! By Carrite's logic, a Holocaust denier is not necessarily anti-Semitic (and no, I'm not comparing sexism to the Holocaust). RO^(talk) 18:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You do realize that you just equated the gender imbalance of Wikipedia editors with fascist genocide, don't you? Your pious and disingenuous disclaimer notwithstanding, that's exactly what you did. Kudos to Dr. B for the correct ID...... Carrite (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Dr. Blofeld, I don't remember if you asked me. I am open about being a woman but never felt I was abused because of that. Compliments to the male and female editors I encounter, including Eric who was always polite to me, and yourself, - not dwelling on occasional outbursts which I will remember only on Halloween ;) - I have been called funny names and asked to "better conduct themselves" but not because I am female. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Dr, Blofeld for this post. I truly appreciate you being open minded about the issue. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Dr Blofeld, thank you for the post. I am glad you were able to take on board some of the criticism you got here and to be willing to post this. It shows good character. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 18:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you, @Dr. Blofeld. This means a lot to me. I am proud to call you my friend. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
• Same here. Sincerely. RO^(talk) 18:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for this post, Dr. Blofeld. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: thanks for this post. One of the reason why many cases of what I would clearly call sexist abuse never come forward is because many of the women being abused have seen what happens to many of those who do come forward. I made a comment during Danielle Citron's Q&A about receiving upwards of twenty emails a week from women who edit (and often either are significant content contributors, or would lke to be,) but who are deterred from continuing editing because of the abuse thrown their direction. Some of the emails I receive are definitely misguided, and although my email queue is often that high it certainly isn't always - but I do receive a large number of emails involving situations I think you would agree just aren't okay. Unfortunately, we have very limited resources to provide them with most of the time, since a lot of the internal processes we can point them to would result in them being put through (to steal a phrase) a 'cultural buzzsaw,' even with the help of experienced Wikimedians, and generally the bandwidth of both myself and the other volunteers I could enlist to try to help in particular situations is, unfortunately, extremely limited. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Well said. Though I think the more important point is that experiential evidence isn't held against the editor experiencing it. This place is currently trying to hang people for the simple crime of interacting with women as though they were any other editor without thought to any significance of their sex behind it. Which is what we all want. And it seems Blofield has been doing that for a long time. Now hopefully he sees how bad it can be for women here (and everywhere honestly) that are at the mercy of people that don't share his view. But the view we want expounded here is his view. Capeo (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Have you improved an article on a woman today?

The gender gap exists and cannot be denied. I had a dream, that we would do better fighting / closing / filling it if we'd write and improve more articles on women. One is pictured on the Main page now, hook idea by me: ... that Emilie von Berlepsch (pictured) described herself as "fighting against the prejudice that wants to grant women neither a will of their own nor the courage to express it"?. I will take care of Trudeliese Schmidt today. Read Enid Blyton for an example. Invite to the approach. More: WP:QAIPOST#Articles on women

Fight the gender gap: write articles on women

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your work! GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The Enid Blyton FA mentioned is a nice piece of work. From the page edit stats it appears two editors have done the lion's share of the work. Perhaps we should thank them too? DeCausa (talk) 10:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Articles about women who turn out to be notable turn up at CAT:CSD when they shouldn't all the time. Some I remember saving are Ruth Guler, Naomi Sager, Bex Marshall and probably a few more. If I spot another one today to improve, and have time to do so, I will! To be perfectly blunt, I feel some sort of moral duty to help improve the gender gap this way - if women do not like Wikipedia's environment, those like me who can put up with it should try and fill the gaps they would have contributed to. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll certainly get down to that. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

What do think of writing a stub on a woman for every post to an AN board? Or: instead of that post? At least a start class article for an entry in an arbitration request? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Keeping up with AN would be impressive. Keeping up with ArbCom requests would be more doable. I paid my penance for the most recent case today and yesterday. GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo is not a feminist activist, if you are , go write and encourage your pov but don't expect neutral editors to join in with your position Govindaharihari (talk) 08:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Must one be a feminist activist to write about a woman? GorillaWarfare (talk) 09:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The two main editors of Enid Blyton are male, so is the main editor of Emilie von Berlepsch, - thanks to them! I have been called many things (see a little higher) but not yet a feminist ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

...not forgetting the main editor's of Marie Lloyd and Hattie Jacques. Cassianto^Talk 09:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

...or, indeed, the main writer of Haim. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if an article about Carolyn Doran would count? - 2001:558:1400:10:CD87:E5D5:4F2E:9F05 (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Atlantic rebuttal?

Putting aside all disputes regarding EC, does Jimbo or WMF plan to write a rebuttal to the Atlantic pointing out the many factual inaccuracies in the article? Mztourist (talk) 11:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

There are two possibilities of rebuttal. A first possibility will say that WP is the best workplace ever, so that Atlantic is a bunch of craps (what that damned people have to hide for lying so hard). A second possibility will say that the core of the paper is right, while the details are wrong (better backing the opinion piece will give it more strength). Which one is your prefered horse ? Pldx1 (talk) 13:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

So far there have been no other news agencies that are coming forward and saying "Yeah the Atlantic is right" I wouldn't worry too much about it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The minor errors in the Atlantic article have been corrected; those superficial details are of interest to Wikipedia insiders alone. The larger picture is clear: Wikipedia is open to harassment -- especially sexual harassment, to bullying, and to extortion. Gamaliel’s superb editorial in The Signpost is Wikipedia's best reaction, although some of the comments are deeply embarrassing to the project. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• Mark is correct, and furthermore the WMF submitting a rebuttal is out of their scope, would endanger their CDA protections, and would be unlikely to happen anyway. I also significantly doubt Jimbo would submit a rebuttal either. Most errors in the article are trivial to any outsider and have been corrected. @Knowledgekid: as a former comms professional and current rabblerouser (though not in the context of Wikipedia,) trust me, other outlets will cover the Atlantic's take, and many outlets have published similar takes before. Kevin Gorman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• Four of the "minor" errors are corrected. At least another four are extant. And they may be minor, in the sense that the exact name of the article that wasn't deleted doesn't greatly matter, but it does suggest that the author did precisely zero fact checking, and knew precisely nothing about Wikipedia.

In this context the article is worth the paper its printed on.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC).

If there is going to be a rebuttal, I think the best place to place it would be in the Wikipedia:Signpost,and possibly involve those individuals who have identified as being consulted in the article and how much, if any, of the material they can identify as coming from them. That might make it easier to identify what material may have come from "unidentified" editors, who, potentially, might carry rather a bit of a drudge? And, if there might be material in the article that no active editor would be willing to indicate they provided, that might be some basis for perhaps indicating that the source might be, perhaps, some banned, disgruntled editors. John Carter (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

"might make it easier to identify what material may have come from "unidentified" editors, who, potentially, might carry rather a bit of a drudge" - what a fucking ridiculous comment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

One of the most obvious ones is the link that indicated people would "fight to the death" (in quotations) Lightbreather's proposal. Considering it is in quotes, it presumably came from someone, although, interestingly, the phrase does not appear as a phrase in the page linked to even once. John Carter (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:Rich Farmbrough, some minor errors have been corrected, but some major ones haven't, including the fact that EC's c*** comment wasn't directed at Lightbreather and that Lighbreather received her 1 year ban due to her editting on gun-related topics and not anything to do with gender issues. Add to this the overall lack of balance of just interviewing a few editors and the whole piece makes it sound like this is a misogynist haven. Mztourist (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the best way to not sound like this is a misogynist haven is not to be a haven for misogyny. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

So MarkBernstein you are saying that Wikipedia is a haven for misogyny? Please prove it. Mztourist (talk) 03:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the best way to not sound like a supercilious [deleted] is not to make comments that lead others to that conclusion.John Carter (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Directing disgusting sexist and misogynistic comments at a man is no less repulsive than directing disgusting sexist and misogynistic comments at a woman. You are disgusting. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, RedPen, thank you for engaging in grossly irrelevant criticism of others. Your disgusting refusal to notice that the comment you are criticizing in no way made any sort of "sexist and misogynistic" comment of the kind you accused it of, basically, only really demonstrates what some might call your own disgusting, prejudicial rushes to judgment about others, clearly, in this case, extending to hurling disgusting insults which, basically, have no basis in reality. You are, perhaps, beyond disgusting, showing what some might call disgusting self-righteousness blinded to reality by its own arrogance. John Carter (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

oh, please. your not-at-all-veiled call-back of the infamous cunt comment is absolutely inappropriate, disgusting and misogynistic. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Wait, how was it a call-back? I just checked the logs, and JohnCarter himself included the "[deleted]" bit in his original post. You seem to be arguing that any self-censoring is obviously a veiled reference to the 'infamous comment' that started this Charlie Foxtrot, which (just as obviously) makes it a disgusting misogynistic attack. Whereas I thought it clear that "[deleted]" was (in this as in most cases) JohnCarter's attempt at self-censoring in the midst of his obvious frustration that someone (namely, MarkBernstein) could be so bullheaded. Perhaps people would take these allegations of sexism and misogyny more seriously, if you weren't so damnably eager to hurl such allegations around without any basis in fact. Your words literally disprove their own argument. I'd laugh if it weren't so frustrating. PublicolaMinor (talk) 07:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I just want you all to know that the fennec fox is uniquely adapted to its desert environment. With its efficient kidneys and light fur, it minimizes water loss, and dissipates excess heat with its large ears. It is also particularly cute. Keilana (talk) 03:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Gender

It's always going to be a balancing act, where gender equality is concerned. See this article Enabling, where a referenced sentence gives an example of an "addict Husband". I'm assuming there's such a thing as an addict Wife, too. This example could be seen as biased, by some. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

As you seem to have realized, the sentence in question is part of a quotation, and thus the word choice is that of the source, not of Wikipedians. As such, it seems like a poor example of Wikipedian anti-male gender bias, or whatever you intended it to demonstrate. MastCell ^Talk 16:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

My point is, some may consider the choice of using that part of a quotation, as being biased. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the full source? Although I'd agree it's not an ideal source, there's not really an equivalent sentence in it about wives. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The quote "you may fear your [addict] husband will lose his job" is a good for illustrating how prejudice can be read into text. And MastCell's uncertainty over GoodDay's meaning shows that it is not fanciful.

• Interpretation 1: The text stereotypes males as addicts, and is part of the demonisation of men.
• Interpretation 2: The text stereotypes females as enablers, and implicitly blames the bad actions of the man on the woman - a classic example of victim blaming!

And of course the reader of the above will doubtless realise that the comparison is itself heteronormatively biased, assuming the the "husband" has a wife.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC).

So add an RS that corrects any NPOV problems you see. You've been here long enough to know that we're not really allowed to pull source material out of our imaginations. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Paid editing

Suppose an editor's behavior creates a strong suspicion of paid editing but the editor denies it. What is the appropriate action? How can the Terms of Use be brought into play? None of our help or policy pages really explains this in a useful way, as far as I can tell. (I have two specific situations in mind.) Looie496 (talk) 11:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring whether they are or are not being paid, are they editing in conformance with content policies like WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:DUE? Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

No, but that's not really the point. The Terms of Use don't really mean anything if they don't add anything to our existing policies. My question is what additional tools they give us. Looie496 (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

They don't really add anything on-wiki, where paid advocacy has long been forbidden by numerous policies. They make it easier for the office to tell agencies to knock it off and follow through on such requests. WilyD 15:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

But how does the office become aware that a problem exists? Who tells them, and how? Looie496 (talk) 11:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Looie496: The office, by which I assume you mean the WMF, is unlikely to do much of anything concerning any individual paid editing situation or suspect. It has to be enormous, and I believe that the most the WMF has ever done is yell. I could be mistaken, as I haven't paid that close attention, but I don't believe the WMF has actually taken legal action against violators of its paid editing TOU. That is one of the weakest and most half-hearted areas of endeavor on Wikipedia. In any given situation, it is probably the last thing to look for and the hardest thing to prove. If an editor is POV-pushing, that is usually enough. That doesn't mean that prohibiting paid editing is futile or insane or contrary to the Four Freedoms or whatever the paid editing apologists are saying, but that the TOU is really most useful as a device to justify action by the WMF, if it ever chooses to do so in serious situations. Coretheapple (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the appropriate response is for Looie to spend the rest of his days on Wikipedia stalking the edits of the suspected paid editor. Keep badgering them about why they made a particular edit X, or whether they believe edit Y is truly neutral. It becomes Looie's permanent volunteer job to make the suspected paid editor's activity on Wikipedia completely miserable. Meanwhile, the German Wikipedia welcomes corporate-affiliated editors to directly interact openly on their Wikipedia articles, while Jimbo has his Bright Line Rule for the English Wikipedia while he jets from place to place taking 5-figure payments for little 45-minute keynote speeches. This has been the operating plan since about October 2006. I'm surprised it's taken Looie nine years to catch on to it. - 2600:1002:B01B:2A03:F9C3:ED8C:2CA7:B96D (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to spend the rest of my days stalking the edits of the suspected paid editor. I want to offload that job on somebody who has better tools. Looie496 (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Staking an another editor and badgering them about something is WP:HARASSMENT, regardless of why it is done. Trying to get someone to reveal details of their real life that they do not want to is WP:OUTING. If you have no evidence that this editor is breaking the terms of use, and they have denied doing so, why are you pursuing it? If their contributions to the encyclopaedia are neutral, based on reliable sources and do not add undue weight to an article, then what benefit would taking any action have? Thryduulf (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Glad to have you say that - but when you were emailed actual evidence of harassment in the past - you did precisely nada. When you saw harassment by an "anonymous IP" you did precisely nada. When you actually do something, I shall suffer a cardiac arrest. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

If discussion on the user's talk page doesn't reach a resolution, you can raise the matter at WP:COIN, but be mindful that outing is still not allowed. Rhoark (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Out of interest, if you could email me the details privately, I'd enjoy looking into the situation as a learning experience. Mr 2600 is obviously being unhelpful in this discussion, and while I disagree with most of the other answers, they at least express a defensible perspective.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Translation: Mr 2600 hit close to home, so let's call him "unhelpful". It's the good old Kazakhstan defense. - 2601:42:C100:9D83:D139:E3C0:4FBC:7F82 (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Email sent. Looie496 (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Looie496: do keep us updated. Given the "community's" witless attitude toward this issue (mainly because the "community" in discussions like this, though not this particular discussion, tends to be dominated by paid editors and their tools) I'm not holding my breath. Coretheapple (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing "witless" about this — the community has spoken that they value anonymity over identification and accountability and WMF has spoken that they prefer wide open horizons for IP editing and account creation over some sort of substantive registration process. It's patently obvious to all but a small handful that if A and B are true, C is impossible — C being effective identification and permanent removal of paid COI editors. At that point the question is whether such editing is to be regulated and supervised through a rational set of policies or driven underground where regulation and supervision is impossible. That's where we sit. Carrite (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

we sit having proven my point with the usual red herrings, black-and-white scenario-fallacies, nonexistent "community speaking" and other blah blah. Coretheapple (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

All right, tough guy, you start the first RFA, requiring registration to edit and limiting individuals to one account each. We can work on making that stringent via WMF once En-WP voices its approval. Go for it, I'll back your effort in word and deed. Either that or admit that you're just chattering like an angry squirrel and that my read of political reality on this matter is accurate. Carrite (talk) 15:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh there's no question that the political reality is that your point of the view, the "let's propose something that will be immediately and overwhelmingly shot down and do nothing else" point of view, is dominant whenever the subject comes up, which again proves my point. Speaking of paid editing, I really have to pay you to continue to come on these talk pages and blah-blah to confirm my position on this, and the futility of depending on a community of Carrites to deal with a reputational issue that really doesn't affect most editors. Coretheapple (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I'm happy to toss ya a life preserver as a freebie. Please do get out of the deep end of the pool, however, your flailing about is scaring the other patrons. Carrite (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Free work is the least I've come to expect from anyone who devotes time and energy, without compensation, to helping other people make money by leeching off Wikipedia. Coretheapple (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed the reference to Kazakhstan offered by the IP. This discussion follows so closely the usual "paid editing discussion script" its instructive. (Propose unworkable solutions and say that's the only way to address paid editing; sScream "Kazakhstan!") Same cast of characters: the paid editing fanatics, the paid editing apologists, Mr. 2600/2100. Jimbo expressing useless moral support.

I can't emphasize too much, and I want Carrite to pay attention to this as he always seems to ignore this, fanatical as my view is on paid editing, it has been my position for some time that paid editing is a reputational problem for Jimbo and a financial issue for Mr. 2001, and really only a source of recreational amusement to the rest of us unless we are anxious to volunteer to help commercial and private interests (Wikipedia's founder and paid editing mills). Let them slug it out. Please note this diff from my user page, indicating that this has been a long-held position on my part. Coretheapple (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Just curious -- what percentage of Mr 2001's total annual income do you perceive is derived from paid editing of Wikipedia, such that it is a "financial issue" for him? - 2601:42:C100:9D83:20B4:1DBF:A120:2522 (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the answer to that question is "less than you'd like it to be." Similarly, I surmise that the answer to this question: "To what extent does paid editing hurt Wikipedia's reputation?" is "More than its founder wants it to be." As you see, this is ultimately an issue between you and your ilk and Jimbo, which is why I don't go berserk when I see your posts here, even though you were perma-blocked from Wikipedia. Jimbo apparently used to feel that paid editing was a big deal, but now he feels that Wikipedia can deal with it, push it off into a corner, off by Kazakhstan if you will. So while I find the practice dreadful, I see no point in getting upset by it. Likewise, I think that if you focus on your day job and less on this hobby, you would be a happier person. Just my two cents. Coretheapple (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Venturing a guess, I would suppose that Mr 2001 pulls down an annual salary from the Very Large, Very Rich corporation for which he works that is in the low six figures and that he makes for paid editing on Wikipedia something in the middle four figures. And I suppose that he would still continue to take paid editing gigs if he were making virtually zero just because he's all-in as a matter of principle at this point and he's not gonna be bullied or bluffed away. That's the kind of guy he is (and I do like him a lot, actually). You also might be interested to learn, Mr. Core, that Mr. 2001 in real life really, really doesn't like the looks of his paid editing prospects if the hardline registration suggestions I make above were put into place. That's one thing the paid editors who use multiple socks can't deal with — tightly restricted registration. But, hey, you just keep trying to do an end run around the community and keep us posted how that is working out for ya... Carrite (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure the gravy train would eagerly embrace any approach to the paid editing plague such as the ones you keep bringing up, since they have no chance of being enacted. Rest assured that I've given up a long time ago trying to influence the "community" to bail out what is essentially a Jimbo/WMF problem. I've waxed eloquent on that point in this very discussion, indeed in my comments directly above. However, I am pleased that you have ignored it (again, I owe you money for being my interlocutor) so that I can cheerfully repeat: the onus is upon those most directly involved to do the end-running that indeed is required so that a "community of Carrites" does not harm their franchise. But it is not the "Coreetheapple franchise." It is the "Jimbo franchise." You are free to ignore this again, so that I can repeat it. Coretheapple (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not surprised to hear that Mr. 2601 only makes about $5,000/year on his paid editing, who would actually be satisfied with the work this guy does? OTOH, is sounds extremely strange that this person would spend the last eight years editing Wikipedia after he was banned to uphold the principal of "free hidden advertising in encyclopedias". It's just weird that somebody would have such a principal. Does anybody know what philosophical, ethical or religious traditions this comes from? It obviously has no basis in the US legal tradition of Freedom of Speech - commercial speech can be highly regulated in the US, and trying to apply an outside commercial venture's "freedom of speech" to what is a legally private forum is totally off-base. In short, does Mr. 2601 have any justification for trying to force his commercial advertisements down Wikipedia's throat? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Your verb tense is wrong — I haven't asked Mr 2001 about his financials and am playing Mr 2601's guessing game since Mr Core would not. Smallbones, Mr 2001 keeping after it for 8 years because he tried to do the right thing, was treated miserably for his efforts, and has harbored a grudge ever since is no more difficult to understand than is the behavior of the anti-paid editing crew continuing to fight the good fight (or tilt at windmills) in the face of compelling evidence that their battle is inevitably a losing one. It's all about fighting out of principle. No need to be flippant about these things. Carrite (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

There is every reason to be flippant about these things, and I'll be happy to enumerate them for you. First, as I've indicated above, paid editing is fundamentally a reputational issue for the project as a whole and for Jimbo personally. Everyone else are essentially bystanders, involved purely out of curiosity and personal interest. Thus the very fact that we are having this conversation, while Jimbo, the only nonblocked edidtor with a personal interest, is only sporadically involved, is something of a hoot. Secondly, playing along with Mr. 2600's pretense that he is a different person than Mr. 2001 is certainly ridicule-worthy. Thirdly, there is something indeed quite amusing about a paid editor taking a "principled" stance on his "right" to exploit Wikipedia's business model for personal profit. Fourthly, it is doubly amusing to hear someone like you say that doing so is "the right thing." Right by whose standards of morality? P.T. Barnum's? Dracula's? Coretheapple (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Looie496: - please email me your suspicions and details. Details that are inappropriate to share on-wiki are usually fine to share with admins off-wiki and if my own research and assessment agrees with yours, I'll block them for you or enforce an existing ban depending on the circumstances. I also note with interest that I've personally violated WP:OUTING w/r/t paid editing at least a dozen times, including at ANI and in arb pages - and in a way that Cooley, LLP actually quoted in a cease and desist letter to those involved. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Kevin, do you mean this particular Cooley, LLP? Or did you mean this one? Or this one? - Mister 2001:558:1400:10:DDD:F877:1CF7:CE3D (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It took me awhile to get the gist of @Carrite:'s "Your verb tense is wrong." Do you mean that Mr. 2001 no longer does paid editing? Why doesn't he take the advertisement off his page then? And why would he continue to harass folks about it? You are describing a completely irrational person. He hides advertising in a non-profit encyclopedia. He deceives people about his identity while here and has an obsession about attacking Jimmy Wales on this page. But he doesn't do any paid editing? his harassment come totally from principle? I'll ask again, what principle? Have you ever run into anything like this "principle" in any field of human endeavor in history? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You're assuming that I'm right about GK's financials and I haven't talked to him ("I'm not surprised to hear..." vs. "I would not be surprised to hear..."). Still, he's lurking and hey, GK, I'll lay $5 of those $10 you owe me that my orders of magnitude guessed above are correct. (See, a bet where you don't have any risk — how cool is that? Of course, if I lose I will blab, so you might want to consider whether you wanna cash that chip...) Don't make GK out to be a huge player in the paid editing debate, he's a small "pop and pop" fetid basement type of operation in a high-stakes game. Your real enemies are elsewhere. I respect the fact that GK has taken unfairness and went all-in with it for so long. He's made mistakes in the process, but he is basically a good dude and standing up to bullying is always commendable. Not to say he's not a troll from time to time, but I reckon that's his compensation for time spent. You need to focus your attention elsewhere, Smallbones. Carrite (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll focus my attention wherever I want, thank you. He is not just "a troll from time to time" - every time I see him here he is trolling. He's been banned for 8 years, Doesn't he know when he is not welcome. He harasses me on my talkpage. He violates the terms-of-use. And Carrite says "well he only does a little paid editing". It's the principle of the thing - he is a liar - pretending he is not banned when he edits - and a thief.- stealing "free" advertisements Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Smallbones, you wonder why that particular paid editor keeps visiting your Talk page (when you've asked him not to), and he says it's because you keep spreading lies about him elsewhere, especially on Jimbo's Talk page, where he does have a limited, traditional right-of-response. Well, here is one of those examples. You keep saying that the paid editing of MyWikiBiz constitutes "advertisement". His work is actually quite "encyclopedic", according to the standards, guidelines, and policies of Wikipedia, save only for the new "Terms of Use" rules that are regularly disobeyed by some of the Wikimedia Foundation's top donors, anyway. So, think about this -- if you stop lying about his content being "advertising" (which, if it were, it would get fairly promptly deleted, anyhow, so what would be the point), he will likely stop dropping by your Talk page to point out what a liar you are.

Carrite, the 2015 paid editing tab is actually in the high three-figures, and the income unrelated to paid editing is in the top 6% of US households for 2015. So, since you thought the paid editing was in the thousands, you are off by an order of magnitude (correct?), so now I only owe you $5, not $10. Go Green! Go White! - Mister 2001:558:1400:10:DDD:F877:1CF7:CE3D (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Why are you referring to yourself in the third person? Coretheapple (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Dang, anonymous MSU fan — nailed the income but overshot the estimate on paid advertising revenue by a factor of 5 or 6. You win money for nothing, which was pretty much what that Ducks covering at the last minute was. Tip of the hat to you. Carrite (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

ilmpedia.com

I created ilmpedia.com, a Wiki website as a protest to Wikipedia because for years I wasn't allowed to contribute on some of the articles at Wikipedia are now featured articles on my ilmpedia.com. Just had to tell you this. 2607:5600:1D:0:0:0:1467:FADE (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate Level Marketing? Or one of the items at ILM?

I don't want to visit the website just to find out. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid the OP is going to have to work a little harder to find people who ; a) have any idea what this is about, and b) the subset of "a" who actualy care about it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

They already have four featured articles over at ilmpedia.com. Here is the complete text of one of them, "Scientific method":

"Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. During the Islamic Golden Age in 1021 CE Ibn al-Haytham introduces the experimental method and combines observations, experiments and rational arguments in his Book of Optics. There are five major steps in the scientific method: Observe, Hypothesize, Predict, Experiment and Reproduce."

I wish every encyclopedia project well. I do not think we have to worry about this encyclopedia as a rival, at least at this time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like Jagged 85, only they wrote at far more length. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 05:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC).

RfC: administrator election reform

Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC --Guy Macon (talk) 16:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Query

I !voted at an AfD. The sole person who is insisting that the article of his be kept is not\w nominating a slew of articles for deletion on quite tenuous grounds. Several of mine are nominated/ proposed for immediate deletion. One of mine is on a person who is head of a major corporation now, but who had been a UN Assistant Secretary-General (not a US politics issue there) but also held political office - so I am quite absolutely barred from commenting at the AfD even though the AfD is a blatant and absolute retaliation for my position at an AfD. This post is absolutely unrelated to "US Politics broadly construed" but is directly related at blatant misuse of the deletion tools of Wikipedia. Is my post here a violation of anything rational? Collect (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Also note - the nominator of the slew of articles at AfD does not notify those who wrote any of the articles - I fear he might be in violation of policy by not notifying when he used the name of the person starting the articles as his main rationale for bringing them to AfD -- I mean - how can anyone rationally say the first black postal carrier in the US is "not notable"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Collect, I've seen it happen. I wrote an article on Tahera Amhad. She was the first woman to recite the quoran in public in the united states at a national convention, featured in PBS The Calling and later the coke can nonsense of may this year. The precedent set was that being a first isn't always a notable thing. I still to this day do not understand that rationale. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The same sock ([14]) nominated a college president and former Dean of Dartmouth as "not notable", the publisher of the primary reference work on artists as "not notable", and so on. I think he would nominate Rosa Parks if I had edited that article :(. Collect (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Collect - If there is someone stalking your articles in retaliation for an AfD vote, this is probably a matter for AN/I, not Jimbotalk. Also, links to the AfD debates would help. Carrite (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

To the extent that anything remotely connected to "US politics" would get me at least a one-month block, I am trying to be very careful. You asked for a set of links, so I am not going to name articles, lest my friendly neighborhood Spiderman appear. [15] [16], [17], [18], [19]. Enjoy. Collect (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea of the motivations at work here, but the one I looked in on, Seymour, seemed anything but frivolous. Puffy, and not the greatest sourcing. Coretheapple (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The motivations are clear, Coretheapple. The nominator is retaliating against people who support deletion of their overt SPA self promotional editing by nominating for deletion articles those other editors have written, on spurious grounds. It is naked and it is ugly. Fortunately, it will not be successful, but it gets people riled up and wastes people's time. Classic tendentious editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The solution to any perceived problems with Thaddeus Seymour is to improve the article, not delete it. He meets WP:PROF. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, but I think the nom needs to be recorded on the talk page for future reference regardless. Coretheapple (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

WMF NSA lawsuit dismissed

Comment? Future? [20] --DHeyward (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

[21] --Guy Macon (talk) 00:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, we'll hear from from the ACLU next week, and a decision will be made soon as to next steps. This sort of thing is unfortunate, of course, but depending on the exact details (I am not a lawyer) a successful appeal is always a possibility. Given what we know from the Snowden documents, the Judge is wrong. Unfortunately, it may take 25 years (when things will be routinely declassified) to prove it definitively. WMF blog post has more details.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, the internet backbone. Quite appropriate, with all this terribly beastly spying business going on, don't you think? Can we open a 25-year RfC on NSA? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales I see you removed this without comment, but in all seriousness you now have a judge essentially stating that the arguments you have been the public face of aren't credible. Instead of continuing to push the same discredited commentary as you have above, why don't you push the WMF to look at other solutions. Here's a suggestion; if you and the WMF are so deftly afraid of the NSA bogeyman, why don't you simply move the WMF servers out of the US? Problem solved. 101.186.127.22 (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

This strikes me as a freedom of navigation exercise. No matter what the law says, the more powerful pushes out the weaker, until that is new law. So a judge might have ordered the Guantanamo force feeding videos to be released in 2014; but what happens is that the government releases the ones they want, on the schedule they say, and the lawyers who sued them and the judge that gave the order have to learn to become part of the apparatus keeping their contents hidden from the public. You didn't see them last year, won't see them this year ... maybe they'll be declassified when the full version of the Bay of Pigs report comes out, or when U.S. warships patrol through the Great wall of sand.

Meanwhile, if the courts didn't dare look into this, we should scarcely be surprised. Constitutions were written by people - how long did we really think the dead words of dead men would safeguard our defenses? As on the South China Sea, it is now a matter of tactics and, above all, numbers. If, say, Wikipedia Zero allows someone in a distant country to view a cached version of a page at his local phone company, how is the NSA going to find out? If conversations are actually carried out with effective encryption, and if we simply don't ask for or keep the most useful kinds of personal data in the first place, how much are they going to get anywhere? While moving the main server is one part of this tactics, a better question might be whether we can eliminate the need for central servers and administration entirely. Simply having a central server in a different country will not help if they are in a relationship with the NSA, and how many aren't? Wnt (talk) 14:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Moving the servers outside of the U.S. would do nothing. The NSA's spying involves them tapping the Internet backbone that physically exists in the United States. It doesn't matter where the endpoints of the traffic are. And, the NSA is enormously helped in this by the fact that the majority of Internet traffic passes through the U.S. (Hey, remember, the Internet started as a U.S. Department of Defense research project.) --71.119.131.184 (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

How much of donor's contributions were used on this farce? Cla68 (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

However much it was too much. Regardless of one's opinion on NSA etc. it is not WMF's remit to be a pawn in the EFF++ game. We could perhaps develop robust technologies to encourage and assist editors and readers who wish to maintain their privacy. (And HTTPS everywhere is not it.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC).

"Pawn" seems like an odd choice of wording, since it usually connotes an entity who is being unknowingly manipulated. Since the WMF had to explicitly sign on to the lawsuit, and has actively supported it in the public media, it seems to me that "ally" would be more accurate. One can certainly argue that the WMF should or should not be involving itself in such things, which is a separate issue. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The WMF blog post linked above mentions pro bono legal counsel, so at least part of the legal cost didn't come from WMF. Deli nk (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Pro Bono? Poor old NSA, eh? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The Intercept puts this in a broader context. Wnt (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Query2

See Murder of Anni Dewani. Her husband had zero notability outside the single event (a charge that he paid for her murder). He has been specifically and totally exonerated. How much should his name be mentioned in the article about the murder - or is using the term "husband" sufficient? An edit summary re-inserting the husband's name in many places in the single article states "Reverted staggeringly outrageous removal of cleared suspects name. Seriously, do you want to make Wikipedia a global laughing stock?)" and the talk page comments aver " For almost 5 years the Article mentioned Shrien Dewani by name and for those 5 years positive consensus existed for his name to be in the article. Who made you God to suddenly decry the inclusion of Shrien Dewani's name? There is no consensus to support your spurious assertion that inclusion of his name is a WP:BLP violation and thus no justification for having expunged his name from the article" and " Although I have encountered's Collect over-zealous application (some would say gaming) of BLP in the past, I am absolutely staggered at his wholesale removal of Shrien Dewani's name from this article. Given that virtually the entire reporting focus on this case was on Shrien, and his fight to prove his innocence, to remove his name from this page on some distorted interpretation of a technicality will make Wikipedia a global laughing stock. I have therefore reverted Collect's bizarre and destructive edits, and fully intend to revert any attempt to reinstate them." (bolding what might be an improper attack)

Shrien Dewani was not merely "acquitted" - a judge found that there should never have been any prosecution of him at all, an he has had zero "notability" other than from the apparent gross miscarriage of justice. The name is now replaces more than three dozen times in this single article - bludgeoning Wikipedia readers with an implication that "Shrien Dewani was likely guilty of murder" when the fact is that such an mplication in my opinion is precisely what WP:BLP is intended to prevent. Ought Shrien Dewani's name be given more than three dozen times in an article about a murder where he was actually officially exonerated? And was it a "bziarre and destructive edit" to act on that position? Collect (talk) 12:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: Prior to the above message, there was already an RfC open regarding this isssue on the relevant talk page. Samsara 15:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: The strangely worded RfC asks

"We require clarification regarding the applicability of WP:BLP to this article. Does WP:BLP prescribe that an exonerated person's name should be excluded from an article pertaining to a criminal case in which they were once considered a suspect? Dewanifacts (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)" w

here my position has always been that contentious claims about living persons which have been deleted, require "positive consensus" for inclusion per WP:BLP and not that "no contentious claims are permitted at all" which is the apparent position imputed for me. Inclusion of deleted material requires "positive consensus" per policy, and the RfC is basically meaningless alas. Collect (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your interpretation of BLP. However I think the BLP noticeboard might be a better venue to discuss. Coretheapple (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify my comment above, I was referring to consensus. I'm not saying I agree that the name of the person needs to be minimized in this particular article. Looking cursorily at the article I'd say that he seems central to the article, given his "wrong man" situation and the fact that it is clearly pointed out. We don't want to remove his name or minimize it any more than we would if this was an article about Christopher Emanuel Balestrero. Coretheapple (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Struck out that it was clearly pointed out. Not so clear. Coretheapple (talk) 22:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

One thought, as a very strong proponent of BLP: My view is that our purpose in such cases should be to do the right thing in terms of human dignity. In some cases, that may very well be to omit a name. However, Shrein Dewani is a very famous name for a long time now (at least in the UK) as this case received a great deal of very sensationalized press. Her name is likely even more well known (and easier to spell). Google trends show that while her name is searched on more often, his name is searched on as well.

I think the article should therefore use his name, but should say in the first paragraph - with an exact quote from the judge if supported as notable remarks by a secondary source - something like "a judge found that there should never have been any prosecution of him at all" (Collect's words).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Its a terribly written article, abandoning summary style, hard to follow, poorly organized. I was reading it and I got lost. That doesn't help at all when you have an innocent man's name bandied about. As for the judge, yes he more or less said what Collect paraphrased, but it would have to be either reported in an RS source somewhere, as I don't think it can be teased out of the decision linked at the top. I agree it should be made clear at the outset. Coretheapple (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 October 2015

• Editorial: Women and Wikipedia: the world is watching

• News and notes: Wikimedia lawsuit against NSA dismissed; Affiliates mailing list launched

• In the media: "Wikipedia's hostility to women"

• Special report: One year of GamerGate, or how I learned to stop worrying and love bare rule-level consensus

• Featured content: A more balanced week

• Op-ed: Wikipedia is significantly amplifying the impact of Open Access publications

• Arbitration report: Four ArbCom cases ongoing

• Traffic report: Hiding under the covers of the Internet

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Nice of Gamaliel to offer a wholly independent editorial on Gamergate. It's not like he's involved in the article at all, is he? Jimbo why don't you write an editorial on how Jimbo Wales looks next? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.47.206 (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Bans

@Jimbo Wales: You walk about wanting this user talk page to be open, so is it your intention that bans don't apply here? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• To be clear this specific question is almost certainly related to Eric Corbett's ongoing arbcom topic bans related to civility and issues of the gendergap. Oiyarbepsy: to get a reasonable answer, providing context is a really good idea. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Ignoring the true point behind Oiyarbepsy's question, it would be nice if Jimbo would clarify this in a more general sense. Jimbo has largely relied on others to moderate his talk page for him, and he only makes this difficult for them by allowing a near free-for-all, with the moderators needing to interpret "near" for themselves. GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Oiyarbepsy removed all six of EC's posts, of which only two allegedly violated his arbcom restrictions. And of the two, even the blocking admin (a former arb) did not remove. Even when the specific arbcom remedy included allowance to remove. IHTS (talk) 08:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
    • That's why I'm asking. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Eric Corbett is deeply unwelcome here. I generally support the idea that if people have a problem, they should be able to approach me here without getting into trouble for "canvassing" and the like. But there are limits, and we are not required to have unlimited patience for people who are not prepared to behave in an appropriate manner. I acknowledge the difficulty that GorillaWarfare identifies and the main thing about it is that no one is going to get into trouble for removing trolling from my user page. As another example, anything from "Mr. 2001" should be deleted immediately - he's not here to build an encyclopedia, he's here to wage his nearly 10 year obsessive campaign against me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you here to build an encyclopaedia then? What was the last article you expanded or improved for the benefit of the project? Cassianto^Talk 20:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

There are many ways to contribute constructively to the project. I am 100% sure that I'm doing my job responsibly and with good humor.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• There was an entire arbitration case on this general subject. As a result of this I ceased my previous policy of deleting the so-called "Mr. 2001" contributions, and expect to continue this policy notwithstanding the comment immediately preceding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning_Policy Coretheapple (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

That is understandable. Still, if anyone wants to remove them, I won't complain and will defend that action as being consistent with maintaining this page as a useful forum.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I just felt it's too much of a pain. Smallbones upholds policy and is dragged through an arbitration. Bah. Coretheapple (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised to see my username here and I should thank Coretheapple for digging out the diff that made the result of that ArbCom decision inevitable. But I have no complaints about going through the ArbCom process. About the only thing that really surprised me was that nobody actually accused me of violating any of Wikipedia's rules. I don't think that should be allowed - the folks who request such cases should get a short-term ban for trying to drag people through the mud. As far as me trying to keep some modicum of order on this page, well it is just not my job and may not even be possible. But I do remove comments by trolls and banned editors, as well as from people explicitly disinvited by Jimmy, if I feel that they are trying to discourage others from participating here (via their trolling). I generally do not remove comments once they have been responded to, but that is not a hard and fast rule. I'll remove all the comments below that have been made by folks who have been explicitly disinvited above. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo...it's understandable that Corbett is not welcome on your talk page, we all get that now I think. It would, however be wise to not let links to libel printed in a magazine which names him and is full of inaccuracies also stand posted here. It's unfortunate that some editors were interviewed for that piece while others were not, which makes it not only lousy investigative journalism, but bad science as well.--MONGO 20:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

MONGO, this talk page has a high level of activity. Given people's real life schedules and Wales relying on informal moderators to manage the discussions, I'm not sure who is responsible for maintaining a pristine environment. As least since I've been editing, this talk page is a messy place where all sorts of crazy comments and personal appeals are posted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Let me be clear that I do not hold Jimbo responsible for not monitoring his page 24/7...but if someone is going to post such things that libel an editor who uses their real name, well, maybe I'm guilty too for not hatting the thing.--MONGO 01:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, Liz. Which is why it should be deactivated. The thing is an embarrassment, despite Jimbo thinking it is (or may be?) a "useful forum". It is useful to no-one but cranks, misanthropes, publicity-seekers and acolytes. - Sitush (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Please go away then.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

(removed comment by Sitush - You've been told above (as well as last year) that you are not welcome here.) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

(removed comment by Sitush again - You've been told above (as well as last year) that you are not welcome here.) Please re-read Jimbo's comment above "Please go away then" That should be clear enough for anybody. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If Eric believes that The Atlantic has libeled him, that is Eric’s affair; the offices of The Atlantic and the US District Court for Washington DC are thataway ⇒. None of that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Wikipedia may link to this revered publication. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

So if falsehoods about you are linked here then that would also be okay? How okay would they be if you were also defacto banned from commenting here about them?--MONGO 02:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Is this the same "revered" publication you not-so-long-ago suggested was staffed by nonprofessionals? Why the change of heart? 83.170.111.152 (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Did what Mark stated go completely over your head? Smh... Dave Dial (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I admit the double negative confused me but no, I don't think so. Recently, here and elsewhere Mark's spoken of The Atlantic's impeccable reputation yet not long ago he suggested journalists were no better than Culinary Assembly Engineers. I wondered what motivated his change of heart (and whether I should be swayed most by his previous opinion or recent opinion.) 83.170.111.152 (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I see. So you're just trolling, since Mark said no such thing. Neither implying working at McD's was bad, nor that being a journalist was the same thing. Most especially, he stated nothing about the Atlantic in that piece you linked to. So please, stop trolling here and grow up. Dave Dial (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If you're going to paraphrase my arguments, kindly get them right. In that talk, I'm pointing out that journalism is a job or a trade, not a profession. That happens to be true, though many forget it. In the fuller discussion published in Genre, I pointed out the class distinction between newspaper reporters, who were typically high school graduates, and magazine writers, many of whom had gone on to college. This, too, is nearly forgotten; there was a great gulf fixed between Damon Runyan and Dottie Parker. There were always exceptions, like New Yorker editor Harold Ross, or hat Hemingway boy. You could perhaps make an argument that Tarbell and the rest f the muckraker crew were establishing a profession when they tried to buy out Colliers, but that's not the route US journalism took. Now, please crawl back not your hole, or try t find a better gotcha at Gamergate HQ -- and next time, dear banned editor, have the guts Eric Corbett showed and edit under (one of) your accounts. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

That was my first reaction when the subject came up. But he is using his real name, which puts things in a different category, I thought. I don't see why he can't put his "side of the story" on his own user page. Coretheapple (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

But The Atlantic claims that Eric was an admin. Surely even you can't stomach such a vile and baseless slur? 86.187.207.140 (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

He can't put “his side of the story” on Wikipedia because Wikipedia Is Not A Web Host. You know that! If he wants to publish a rebuttal to The Atlantic, he could submit it to The Atlantic. If they won’t take it Harper’s, The New Yorker, Wired, The New Republic, The Nation, and Esquire are all still in business. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

(removed comment by Eric Corbett - You've been told above that you are not welcome here.) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

What's the matter, Eric, can't you get an article about Wikipedia published in a professional periodical? RO^(talk) 23:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

(removed comment by Eric Corbett - You've been told above that you are not welcome here.) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Eric may want something to do with his time when he quits Wikipedia. Something for him to look forward to perhaps? 31.55.88.223 (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement

Jimbo, I'm not sure if you're aware this Wikiproject exists, so I just wanted to bring it to your attention. It's essentially a project that fosters community-driven improvement on one article over a week - generally really important topics that shockingly still have underwhelming articles after all these years. The aim is two-fold: to encourage newbies to enter the project by working with some established editors, and to push important articles up to GA/FA. A co-founder, I have personally contributed by working alongside some Wikimedia people to post statuses out into social media (Twitter/Google+/Facebook) to spread the word via engaging and witty tags. We have had various successful improvements so far, and there are at least four other-language Wikipedias that have followed in our footsteps and created TAFI Wikiprojects of their own. For a time, we were even on the main page! (Just below the DYK section). We're chugging along after 2.5 years, and are always looking for fresh blood, and interesting ideas to improve our innerworkings. Please stop by if you have the chance, and perhaps nominate an article or two if you find any doosies.--Coin945 (talk) 10:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia down

How often does Wikipedia go down? I was just wondering, as it did earlier. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: Servers do go down or experience performance issues every so often, though it's usually not for long. The technical village pump is the go-to place to discuss technical issues, and is probably the best place to ask this question (see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Wikipedia_down for discussion of the downtime you're describing). http://status.wikimedia.org/ is a nice site to check out; it shows the status of all of Wikimedia's services, and their uptime in the last 24 hours. Most services have been 100% the last 24 hours; all are > 98%. Perhaps someone else can provide more concrete statistics over the long term. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 18:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@SuperHamster: Okay, thanks. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Blackout for Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA)?

Should Wikipedia consider doing a blackout for CISA, similar to the previous Wikipedia:SOPA initiative in 2012? • Sbmeirow • Talk • 16:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

NO! For God's sake, we shouldn't be doing any blackouts at all. See this. And now there have at least four proposals in 2015 alone. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia should join the American Library Association and display its logo somewhere on some key pages; the ALA is not seen as being as 'political' as ACLU/EFF, but still effectively represents the common interests of those who wish to make information available to the general public. Wnt (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Enfranchising voters in arbcom elections

I'm dropping a pointer to this discussion here for a couple of reasons. As one: Jimbo is both the creator of arbcom, and still recognized in many arbcom policies (i.e. this) as having authority to involve himself directly with arbcom decisions. As another: Jimbo has repeatedly requested that his page not be subject to the general outlines of WP:CANVASSING, and most other highly watched places I could notify I would be instantly accused of canvassing if I notified.

I've started a discussion and strawpoll here about whether or not I can appropriately exercise my administrative abilities to send out a massmessage neutrally notifying recently active eligible voters in the upcoming arbcom elections that they are eligible to vote, along with a brief description of what arbcom does (taken from arbcom's own description,) and the type of decisions they can make. I started the discussion because it perturbs me that 2014's arbcom tranche saw only 60% of the voters of 2013's arbcom tranche, and a total of 600 voters or so despite the fact that many more are eligible.

I believe that many voters within the electorate that arbcom has set for itself are completely unaware that they are able to vote despite being many of them having a vested interest in the direction Arbcom goes, and novel perspectives to contribute both in voting and in questioning candidates. (e.g., the person who rapidly popped up in initial discussions about this - with over 50k edits - who was unaware they could vote.)

Discussion is welcome in either place, but for the sake of whatever admin ends up closing my AN thread, I would request that anyone with significant comments or who wants to voice an opinion in what is pretty much a strawpoll on whether or not a neutral massmessage to inform eligible voters they are eligible to vote would be an appropriate administrative action comment or !vote here rather than on this talk page. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

What exact mechanism are you thinking of using? I strongly support improving notification of elections, not just at the time of the election, but also in the run up to election so that interested parties have time to do their homework and research the candidates. I'm not sure that mass messaging is the best tool - a site notice to all logged in editors is surely easier and more appropriate?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

We already use a site notice to all logged in users, but discussions both on my talk page and in private have brought up that (a) a lot of people just ignore sitenotices out of habit or have turned them off, and (b) the site notice doesn't make it clear to at least an insignificant portion of those eligible to vote that they are in fact eligible to vote (among other things, a content contributor with more than 50,000 edits stated that the banners had not made them aware they were eligible to vote - yet surely someone with that many edits has a strong potential interest in the direction arbcom heads.) Massmessage is quite easy to use - my proposal at AN is to send out a massmessage to all voters who are eligible to vote by the already identified standards who have been active in the last three months (so that I don't accidentally wake up people who have been inactive for years.) I have exact verbiage there, but my thought is to send out a short, factual, neutrally worded paragraph immediately after candidate nominations have ended (as the Q&A phase begins) from a secondary account that is neutrally named (so that there's not an impression that I am personally pushing people to vote in one direction or another - since any admin can grant +massmessage and +confirmed to another account, a newly created alternate won't be an issue.)

The notices we have in place certainly get the attention of a lot of people, but 2014's voter turnout was 60% that of 2013's - no other editor metric fell like that. If a massmessage draws in any additional chunk of eligible voters who are interested in participating in the election process, I think it's worth it, given how poor recent voter turnout has been. This should be doable with the admin toolset I already have, without need for anything like WMF tech time. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be only upside potential here. It's effective, it's free, it addresses a problem of decreasing voter turnout, and it may improve participation in a democratic election process. Thank you, Kevin Gorman, for this most sensible proposal. — Cirt (talk) 03:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Kevin - you need to establish why people aren't voting. I'd suspect people are sick to the back teeth of the staggering incompetence of the Arbitration Committee in recent years, the people who don't edit but who arbitrate (just what is AGK doing on ArbCom, other than hat collecting) or the people like GorillaWarfare who seem to be hell bent on dragging the community into disrepute. The last 2 or 3 years have left so much mess that it's only the egotistical who will now stand, so the candidate pool itself is desperately poor. The rationale and sensible people, assuming they've not seen sense and fucked off completely (the sensible option) wouldn't want to sit on ArbCom. So maybe it's the case that people don't want to choose the least worst candidates - maybe we need to start by getting some good candidates to stand this year, and that might attract voters. Nick (talk) 12:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nick: - I was very tempted to suggest you take your "sensible option" :-o but your truly sensible option of encouraging editors to nominate themselves as candidates for ArbCom is absolutely wonderful. I wish I'd thought of the idea myself. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Smallbones: sarcasm is unbecoming. You know precisely what I mean, get out there, find people who would make good arbitrators and encourage them to stand. There needs to be a big pool of candidates and the community needs to be more engaged in the process. Nick (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nick: Sorry, but if we eliminate humor than this page would be impossible to deal with. Yes, yes - let's get a big pool of candidates. "Let a thousand flowers bloom." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Henry Lincoln Johnson

The 2015 Medal of Honor winner "William Henry Johnson" is listed under "Henry Lincoln Johnson". His name was never "Henry Lincoln Johnson". Before the 2015 Medal of Honor investigation, he was conflated with another person by that name. The MoH committee found 1,300 pages of documents that all use the name "William Henry Johnson" or "Henry Johnson". The reasons given for keeping the erroneous name is the precedence that it has been this way for 10 years in Wikipedia and that it represents WP:COMMONNAME, even though it is not the most common name. You can see the GHits on the talk page. The name "Henry Lincoln Johnson" comes from a family that thought they were related to him and publicized that he deserved the MoH, but as the MoH committee discovered, they were not related. He deserves to be remembered by his own name, and not an erroneous name assigned to him out of ignorance. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

This is another "RAN losing argument for his preferred vision at talkpage, appeals to Jimbo" thread. Nothing to see here. Only in death does duty end (talk)