User talk:Jimbo Wales

I suppose I should frame this in the form of a question (paid editing)

There is a very good blog post at Wikipediocracy by Mike Wood, who lost his job due to WMF or ArbCom retaliation over paid editing. Hopefully this will be cause for introspection about Check User abuse, outing, and the mentality that leads to this sort of disgusting behavior against one's wiki-opponents. Carrite (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Some users have been fired when using workplace computers to edit Wikipedia while becoming notorious for arguing with admins or other users, perhaps on company time, and then the employers fire them. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you think it's fair to say that the root of the problem was the attempt to leverage Wikipedia for personal gain by moonlighting at a paid position for large corporations who usually wish to provide only one side of their stories, against NPOV, WP:BALANCE in particular, after repeated warnings, and then bragging about it in the commercial press? EllenCT (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, agree with Ellen here. As you (Carrite) presumably know, I was one of those who consistently supported allowing and regulating paid editing rather than trying to suppress it (if not, I dare say a 2601: IP can pop up shortly to remind you), but someone who makes a public statement like As for me, I have made money from Wikipedia and will continue to do so as long as the community continues to create the environment for it. With each article that is deleted by the community, there is another client looking to pay me to get the article back up. For every article that is tagged, there is a marketing company contacting me to re-write the article and remove the tag. For every person who tries to find my account and block it, there are ten emails that I am responding to, giving quotes to write their article. No one can make money from Wikipedia? can hardly be surprised when the WMF starts sending out the cease-and-desists. ‑ Iridescent 17:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I find him refreshingly honest, open and believable. I think he's learned a lot since then. Running this business on his lunch hour wasn't the best move (c'mon now, was it all during lunch?); he should have limited his moonlighting to after work hours, from home. I'm not sure that Elen or the WMF could have known precisely who was editing from the casino, couldn't it have been customer(s), assuming they have free Wi-Fi? The casino's tech guys probably traced it to a specific computer. He seems to treat his current customers well, and knows how to deliver value in terms of what edits will be accepted. Three Areas of Wikipedia Marketing Wikipedia Marketing – Understanding the Deletion Process (podcasts). I don't mind if someone gets paid a bit for producing quality articles of this sort. Among my least favorite editing activities is cleaning up ("Wikifying") new articles for style, left by single-purpose editors who don't take the time to learn. If his editors produce quality work that I don't have to clean up for free, I don't mind this much. And talk me about "personal gain" after you read the WMF's recently released tax return. You know they wouldn't volunteer this information if the government didn't require them to. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia should not encourage admins contacting employers. Admins are community leaders, not official WMF spokesmen. When they go after someone's employer, basically, it's cyberbullying. There's no formal line of distinction between our admins doing this and if Russian admins decided to notify employers of people who write about gay nightlife - only community policy. Now in this case, tracking back to Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Morning277, substantial abuse of multiple accounts was alleged. Maybe WMF could have issued a cease-and-desist, then complained to the company's internet about TOS violations. But why? Isn't it enough to hard block the account? Of course, there's always a chance that someone at the site goes to edit Wikipedia and starts asking questions, but it wouldn't then be Wikipedia's initiative. You can say that this was so important that it had to be stopped... but what is stopped? The way he tells it he's gone from editing in his lunch hour to making a business out of it. Some coup for Wikipedia, eh?

Best way to fight this should be familiar to the drug legalization crowd. You simply allow articles about companies with relatively mild notability requirements. Most of what they care about is simply having an article with their name and a link to the company website. If you let Wikipedians easily cover that basic iota of information, what's left for them to pay to get done? Thus increasing the importance of volunteers while decreasing importance of paid editors. Wnt (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Technically this must have been a checkuser at the time (or someone who previously had the rights and access). Which is a small subset amongst admins. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The IP who posted the "Catch Me If You Can" taunt here is in the UK, so a checkuser on that wouldn't have located Mr. Wood. wbm1058 (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

So I'm wondering if there was a valid subpoena or other compulsory request from law enforcement that required the WMF (or a volunteer "checkuser") to contact the casino. wbm1058 (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I imagine they had a suspicion and checked the user most likely to be the paid editor - which threw up the casino IP. Meta privacy policy for the time allows for contacting third parties with private data for the purposes of preventing distruptive editing. As the editor was editing from a work network, on his work computer - whoever did contact his employer was (while being a complete idiot) within the policy at the time. They didnt even notify a third party, they notified the owner of the IP doing the editing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

So if the culture here is "preventative, not punitive", and the issue needing prevention was "disruptive" editing, wouldn't the block, done from afar, be sufficient to prevent the disruption, and any contact of the casino, if they indeed knew that Mr. Wood was employed there (I guess they likely put two and two together), wouldn't that have simply been punitive? wbm1058 (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

It would depend on the circumstances. Personally in the case of paid editing - absent obvious nono's like whitewashing a murderer or corporate wrongdoings - I think the reaction was a little harsh. He was creating puffy articles on non-notable companies for pay and adding neutral/postive information about them to already existing articles. Not the end of the world. The counter would be he had a LTA with socks going back to 2010. 3 years of the above would certainly qualify as 'disruptive' in the WMF's and most wikipedians (who had to deal with the cleanup of the editing) books. And generally with long term abuse, you start to look for more serious solutions. The WMF has not really had much success in this area. I dont recall Grawp being handled particularly well despite the WMF knowing exactly who they are. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Wood is absolutely disgusting. He knows what he is doing is against the rules (See e.g. WP:NOADS "content hosted in Wikipedia is not for .... Advertising, marketing or public relations," and his book "Wikipedia as a Marketing Tool"). What he is doing is selling products (or company reputations) under the guise of an objective report. That's fraud in my book. He is also extracting money from a non-profit with an educational mission by degrading the educational content. That's theft in my book. His only justification is that he can't be caught - and then when he does get caught he moans that somebody else must have broken the rules. Disgusting. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree completely with your sentiments Smallbones. Although I agree that checkuser should not be abused, I am troubled that there was not near unanimous condemnation of Mr. Wood's article bragging that Wikipedia is a great place to make money with paid COI editing, with statements like these:

For every article that is tagged, there is a marketing company contacting me to re-write the article and remove the tag.

Having authored a new book, and collaborating on a regular basis with a team of editors, I am able to assist clients in every aspect of Wikipedia.

How can we maintain a reputation for neutrality when we allow paid editing to determine the content of our articles? Wasn't it a problem when 44% of the article about BP was written by BP [1], or is that the new model of Wikipedia we are shooting for? --David Tornheim (talk) 03:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh come on. If neutrality is paramount, then we should move towards the Sanger model. The encyclopedia anyone can edit becomes the encyclopedia only neutral editors can edit. Prohibit anonymous editing – all editors must register and identify themselves before they are allowed to edit. Employee of BP? Sorry, you're not allowed to edit that article, but an article on oil exploration technology is fine. I wouldn't mind a move in this direction, but it probably means the Foundation will have to start paying for content. There aren't enough people without agendas who are willing to work for free. What's the difference between an article by an editor paid by a record label to promote a new singer, and an article by a fan who loves their voice and wants to promote the singer. One is paid and the other's not, but neither is likely to include less than favorable criticism of the singer's talent. And besides, all this promotional and fan cruft stuff about obscure pop-culture is hurting the educational mission by degrading the educational content. So if Wikipedia isn't going to make any changes to cope with the inevitable editing that comes with being a top-ten website that Google loves, then y'all should stop whining about it. wbm1058 (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

You do notice, I chose to use my real name for transparency. I don't understand why anonymity is so important to editors. And I do agree it creates the issue that it is very hard to prove COI if the only evidence you have is the edits.

As for the fan vs. the big record label, I trust the fans more, since they are motivated to share the positive experience they had of the band and will likely include RS that reflects that view, just as those who hated the band might be motivated to include RS with critical reviews. As long as the lovers and haters of the band can work together and fairly represent the RS that is out there, I don't see a problem. I think most fans understand that other people don't always like the music they like. And, I have met fans who are near experts on every little detail they could find about the band, including negative things like drug addiction, drama, history, etc. I imagine such fans might add some interesting things to the article, if they can find the RS. But, it is true, some fans and haters can be a over the top and refuse to accept any view counter to their own, even if it is clearly in the RS.

The big record labels are not like this. Their goals are not to educate, inform or provide healthy or meaningful or deeply moving experiences from music. Their primary agenda is simple: to make money for their owners. They will push music that is formulaic and proven to appeal to a wide audience by bean counters [2] rather than appeal to artists, music critics and musicians. It doesn't matter if the music is actually of good quality, unique, expressive or not: As long as they can sell it, then it is "good". I am not interested in reading (or helping to provide) an article written by paid editors to publicize bands that are mediocre and trite, which make them sound better than they are. Let them pay for advertising and not use our encyclopedia for promotional purposes.

I don't see why "obscure pop-culture" is "degrading" to our educational mission. Are we only permitted to have articles on "high" art? Despite being an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, is Wikipedia actually classist and would eschew talking about the Harlem Renaissance as it was happening? Would it have been a mistake for Wikipedia to cover grunge before the record industry found a way to make tons of money from popularizing it and turning it into a formula?

As for the difference between paid editors who are here simply to promote the interests of the person who pays their salary, and those who come here because they are interested in improving the content, I see a huge difference, which I hope I illustrated by the example you chose. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Arturo from BP (or whatever his name was) helped enormously with the coverage of BP. And he didn't even cover some of the terribly inaccurate material we had relating to Deepwater Horizon.

Moreover he followed best practice throughout. The knee-jerk reaction by some of the community was not only an unnecessary insult to Arturo, but to the editors who considered and moderated his work.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC).

Rich, that is a ridiculous and inaccurate statement. While I disagree that Arturo serves as a good example of why we should ban paid editing (being that he outed himself, he was less able to be overtly manipulative), it is not true according to many editors who worked with him and on the BP article, that his presense was more helpful than harmful. I think people like Sarah SV and Coretheapple would agree that Arturo's work caused quite a lot of unnecessary drama. The BP oil spill article went through a giant overhaul and almost nothing was found to be without support, it remained entirely intact save for some minor details, changes and creation of daughter articles. To my knowledge the only involvement you had on these articles was to remove the entire "environmental damage" section one night, creating a daughter article, without leaving a summary, or consulting other editors. So I am unsure why you are making this comment. (If I have you mistaken with someone else, my sincere apologies, bad memory these day.) petrarchan47คุก 20:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Petrarchan47: That's a fair statement. Arturo's job is to spin the article to make it more favorable to BP, which include not just what he does but what he does not do, which is to not correct egregious errors when those errors make BP look good. As he did (at least) once. He is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but to repair a reputation. Coretheapple (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Rich Farmbrough: I have no issues with Arturo. I don't consider him a paid editor, but more like a paid lobbyist, as an official voice of BP at the article. I approve of having such a mechanism to give non-COI editors a way to hear from the subject of the article, allowing us to become aware of common misconceptions, false rumors, RS we might not have been aware of, and helping us to avoid potential libel. As a reader, I prefer to be able to hear the voice of the entity the article is about, not just those who would like the entity run out of town on a rail (consider the Séralini affair, where Seralini's views are almost impossible to find). This is what I look for from journalists: NPR on Fairness and the Fairness Doctrine. I would like to see the same at Wikipedia. Instead, I am seeing increased use of WP:undo and WP:Fringe to create one-sided content in disregard of the fairness doctrine, even when opposing views are available in RS.

So yes, I support BP having a voice at the article that is about it, and I commend BP for its transparency. I see no problem with the person who works for BP being paid to express BP's official view, just so long as they have no decision-making power over the content.

From what I have heard, Arturo was easy to work with and followed the rules. So I support allowing lobbyists at the articles, as long as they don't edit the article, and as long as they do not misuse their position to disrupt the talk page, disrupt consensus of non-COI editors, vote on rules at Wikipedia, and also long as they stick solely to their mission of representing their client at the article (and related articles) in full disclosure.

That said, BP no doubt pays PR firms to maintain its image. If one of those PR firms in addition to maintaining advertising has a team of paid Wikipedia editors, that is potentially a big problem. Editors from such a PR firm could argue for or even insert Arturo's draft directly into the article or have other undue influence--not acceptable. And since it is the PR firm and not BP that would be breaking the rules, BP appears to be clean, even if the PR firm is caught.

When Arturo's version became the Wikipedia version, that shows to me that something is awry. I have trouble believing BP's version is NPOV. Just as I would have a problem if a disclosed lobbyist from Greenpeace showed up and their draft was added verbatim. It shows a failure on our part that this happened. And I have seen no major changes to address these problems. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Smallbones: I don't dispute that Wood's service was against the rules. The problem is that we enforce these rules kind of like the way the government enforces laws against hacking, where the nerd kid from next door gets hauled off in cuffs for screwing around, while the syndicate in China breaks into whatever it likes with impunity. The mere fact that Wikipedia could crack down on this guy in this way is proof that he was never really a threat. We have obvious, obvious signs of crookedness around here, like the way that Square Enix gets a main page article about their products every six months (well, now their fictional characters - I think they've run out of products to feature) as if they were 1/180 of the entire world. No, I don't know who is to blame there. It feels more and more dangerous even to complain about it. So I take no pleasure in seeing some guy fired because in his lunch hour he gave some companies nobody ever heard of the thrill of having their very own Wikipedia page for a while. It looks like enforcement, but it's more like the exception that proves the rule. Wnt (talk) 09:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Wnt I agree with almost everything you say here, including the part about the danger of even talking about the problem. I received threats from 3-4 editors, 2 of which are from admins for posting this: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_208#GMO.27s_and_concerns_about_corporate_influence. I agree with you that the focus of COI investigations are on small entities, while the big fish get away. I do not trust the objectivity of at least one of the major players at COI. It feels to me like the fox in the hen house.

I honestly wouldn't care if Wikipedia were to support a bunch of short yelp-like entries on non-notable businesses, giving basic information, as long as everything is based on RS. The same for films. I am not sure why we even have a notability requirement. It's not like this would eat up a huge amount of disk space, but maybe it is a burden on our bots to have "too many" articles?

As for Woods, I am less sympathetic. We just have his side. We don't know that he worked exclusively for small entities. With his article in Business Insider, big entities might have contacted him looking for advice. As for his claim that his employer violated his "privacy", it sounds like he may not know the law. See for example: [3]. (FYI. I am not an attorney). But worse, he admits to deliberately breaking the rules. If it were a minor violation--I do not consider his misuse of Wikipedia minor--or if the interpretation of the rules was subjective, calling the ISP might be over the top. But in this case, if other methods had not worked, it does sound justified. I do not see Wikipedia to blame for his lost job. We do not know all the reasons for his termination. What we do know is his own actions at Wikipedia were unethical, he got caught, actions were taken against him, his employer found out and there were consequences. If he had not wanted his employer to find out about the unethical things he was doing at Wikipedia, he should have used a different ISP. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Gee who would that be that you don't trust David? You are a pixel waster. Jytdog (talk) 06:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

That's a personal attack, Jytdog, and in my view worthy of a preventative block per WP:NPA. Jusdafax 05:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

So barky. Jytdog (talk) 05:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• Per WP:SLEUTH, "Outing is not a suitable strategy to control COI editing." Martha Stewart comes to mind. We shouldn't have selective enforcement of guidelines for those who aren't significant donors to the Foundation. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• I'd like to state that I favor strong enforcement of the TOS. I'm pleased that Mike Wood got fired as a consequence of abusing the system, and I wish there were further consequences strong enough to motivate him to stop editing in a way that violates the TOS. Looie496 (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• The arguments seem to shake out this way:
  • Inserting paid ads into Wikipedia is not against the rules.
    • Yes it is. See the TOU, WP:NOADS, WP:Sock, etc. etc.
  • They can't catch me
    • They did - too bad, stop your cry-baby act
  • They had to break the rules to catch me.
    • I haven't seen any evidence of that, If you have any evidence take it to ArbCom or the WMF
  • "They" outed me.
    • You outed yourself with your advertising/editorializing, not to mention your current webpage.
  • The rules are applied inconsistently
    • That sounds like an excuse that could stop the enforcement of any rules. A real cry-baby act IMHO
  • Other people do it.
    • That sounds like an excuse that could stop the enforcement of any rules.
  • We've got a userfied essay that says something about Martha Stewart.
    • We've got real rules that deal with the problem. See the TOU, WP:NOADS, WP:Sock, etc. etc.
  • The WMF tolerates donors breaking the rules.
    • If you have any evidence that donors are breaking the rules, present it to ArbCom. But this is BS and you know it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

OK. Does any paid edit to any article, by definition, make that article a paid ad? wbm1058 (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Why do you care? It's plain you don't like the rules, here, which is fine, it does not change anything about them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia:Reward board violate any rules? I see there that someone is offering AUD $20 for an image of both members of the band M2M together. Would a paid image of the band on their article constitute paid advertising for the band, and thus be a rules violation? Someone is offering £10 GBP for getting Buxton to GA status. Doesn't that amount to paid promotion or advertising for that spa town? I've yet to see any money offered for making spelling corrections. But, theoretically, would an offer of money for that be a rules violation? wbm1058 (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Really? Your asking about something that is explicitly governed by WP:COI? Read it. To answer you, it depends on how it's done. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Reward board

Another benign example of paid editing is the reward board, where editors can post incentives, usually to raise articles to featured-article or good-article status. If you participate in this kind of paid editing, transparency and neutrality are key.

So it is theoretically possible to promote that spa town in a neutral way, with no conflict of interest, even though you're getting paid to do that, but only when you transparently advertise in an approved venue that money is being exchanged?

However, identical text written by Mr. Wood, for an identical amount of money, is illegal if there is no transparent reporting in an approved venue of the amount of money exchanged? wbm1058 (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

No. You do have a COI, which is why it's covered in COI and transparency is one of the keys for dealing with that (disclosure is key). Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have trouble parsing your answers. Are you saying that I personally have a COI (with regard to what?), or that offering £10 GBP for getting Buxton to GA status is illegal because the person making that offer has a COI? I'm not aware of any disclosed interests of the person offering the reward. wbm1058 (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

No, not "you" in the sense of talking about your personal situation (which as far as I am aware is not being discussed), "you" in the sense of you asking is the Reward Board under COI. It is, explicitly so. And transparency is one of the keys for dealing with that COI. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Right, so let me put it a different way. Assume that:

1. An editor is paid £10 after getting Buxton to GA status – assume that it passes neutrality concerns because it is a Good Article. I also think it will "promote" tourism in Buxton, which is the point of the £10 offer
2. If the £10 transaction is transparently documented at an approved venue, such as Reward board, no rules were violated and everyone is happy, although this was technically conflict-of-interest editing
3. If the £10 transaction was not transparently documented, then that is a violation of the rules

Is that a correct assessment? wbm1058 (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The Buxton article is interesting, as it is a feature determined by a hot mineral spring; the question is, why is it hot in a sedimentary area? This provides an explanation, which also explains the magnesium content, while emphasizing that our unsourced list of geothermal springs in the United Kingdom is woefully incomplete. (I mean, the link mentions "almost 100" in Harrogate) A little digging by independent editors may divert away the benefit paid editing might be intended to have, and as such should be considered as a real and more pleasurable method of 'enforcement'. Wnt (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Also consider the externality penalties. Gibraltar lost a whole lot of their front banks used as offshore tax havens after they started paying for tourism PR. Talk about a win-win for everyone except tax evaders. EllenCT (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Reward board

Continuing the discussion from above. I see that the reward board has survived two deletion discussions, the most recent was a bit over two years ago. There have been less than 200 offers made over the history of the board, they can be perused HERE. Most of the offers made have been of insignificant monetary value (barnstars and such), however the offer that triggered the last deletion discussion was for $150-$300. I'm not sure I see much point or value in this board if it can't offer reasonably attractive rewards. The way to keep underground crime syndicates from forming is to offer people a legitimate means for making some money. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I was not familiar with the "reward" board. I certainly see your arguments above that it could cause similar problems to paid editing. Nonetheless, from looking at it, when the rewards are low-stakes, such as barnstars or brownies or feelings of appreciation, it doesn't really raise any red flags for me, unless the requested help is related to content or decisions. And it does have the advantage of transparency. I would be okay with having people paid to help with bots or some kind of programming, but would prefer that be done through the WMF with paid staff rather than "paid" volunteer editors. So I could see an argument for getting rid of the reward board, or making sure it can't be used to cause bias in articles and decisions. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Terms of use: then and now

Mr. Wood has raised an interesting point. The terms of use in effect on January 9, 2013 did not say anything about paid editing. I see no basis there for contacting the casino on January 10, 2013. While § 4. Refraining from Certain Activities says WMF can exercise their enforcement discretion with respect to the above terms, I'm at a loss as to which specific term he violated. Only on 16 June 2014 was Paid contributions without disclosure added to the TOU. Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment was created on 11 February 2014‎, and Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure was created on 6 May 2014‎. So it seems the only basis for contacting the casino was (perhaps) something in the local community policies or guidelines?

Now, with regard to his current business operations post June 2014... – wbm1058 (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The WMF made that change to get itself a stronger basis for action. The ToU has always said that editors have to follow community policies and guidelines. With regard to the WP community, WP:PROMO has been policy for a long time and this is what the COI Guideline looked like on Jan 6 2013. Jytdog (talk) 02:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The summary box at the top of the ToU says You adhere to the below Terms of Use and to the applicable community policies when you visit our sites or participate in our communities.

However, while the current ToU has a clause "Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies and guidelines", the January 2013 ToU did not use the word "guideline".

The WP:COI guideline "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." (Jan. 2013)

Where does the WP:Checkuser policy authorize anyone to directly contact the owner of an IP address? wbm1058 (talk) 04:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Morning277 wasn't just engaged in paid editing, he was also engaged in sockpuppetry leading to his block in 2012. I'm not arguing for contacting his employer - personally I'm completely against that - but in regard to the Terms of Use he was in violation because of his long term and large scale use of sock accounts. - Bilby (talk) 06:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Even the current ToU doesn't use the words "sock" or "puppet". "Multiple" is only used in the sense of "access blocked on multiple Project editions", not multiple accounts on the same Project edition. "(If) any individual has had his or her account or access blocked under this provision [§10. Management of Websites], he or she is prohibited from creating or using another account on or seeking access to the same Project, unless we provide explicit permission." I see nothing prohibiting users who have not been blocked under §10 from creating multiple accounts. So, again, this is just under community policies. WP:CheckUser is a policy though, while WP:COI is just a guideline. wbm1058 (talk) 12:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

As I recall, the argument was that using socks to evade scrutiny when editing, or to create a false consensus, comes under "Attempting to impersonate another user or individual, misrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity, or using the username of another user with the intent to deceive". Certainly, the intent is to deceive people into believing that you are someone else, so they don't detect the paid editing. - Bilby (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I don't understand why the focus here is on COI editing. We know he was a paid editor, but he was blocked for abusing multiple accounts, and later banned when it was found that he had been running one of the biggest sockfarms in WP's history. He was doing this in order to deceptively engage in large scale paid editing, but it wasn't the paid editing for which he was blocked per se, but the sockpuppetry. - Bilby (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

SOCKing has been against policy for ever. See ToU on following policy Jytdog (talk) 05:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• If I understand this chain of events correctly, Woods was fired for running a paid editing business out of his company computers. If so, and that is the most unfavorable interpretation of what happened, then the WMF instigated a user's firing. I'm not comfortable with that, sorry anti-paid-editing peeps. Particularly since the TOU back then did not explicitly ban paid editing. Yes, the TOU does have general statements concerning proper behavior but I find this case disturbing, much as I despise the business that Woods is in. Coretheapple (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I also disagree with contacting a person's employer to complain about their editing practices. However, to be more accurate, Mike Wood was not banned and blocked for paid editing - he was initially blocked, and subsequently banned, for engaging in large scale sockpuppetry. That was against the Terms of Use, as it was an attempt to deceive people into thinking that the account belonged to someone else. After being blocked he continued to edit Wikipedia as a paid editor, leading to his ban, and has since that date engaged on ongoing paid editing through new accounts.

There is a story floating around that Mike Wood was banned for paid editing - it is important to be clear that this is not the case. His ban was for deceptive practices which he undertook in order to run his paid editing business. - Bilby (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying that. I'm still not crazy about WMF contacting people's employers except in rare and extreme circumstances. Coretheapple (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Nor am I. I do not, and will not, support contacting an employer simply over editing practices. It would take a lot more than that before I'd see it as an option. It shouldn't have happened. - Bilby (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I have not seen any description other than Wood's for the fact that the contact was made. (it probably was) We have no idea what was said in the call nor who made it from "our side" nor why. What we do know is that his employer acted on whatever information they were given and that the employer decided to fire him. Saying that WP/WMF "got Woods fired" is Woods' spin on the story, and that is as far as that goes as far as I am concerned. His employer fired him.

I've never looked into the on-Wiki history of this. So I did. I was wondering what account it was - above someone said it was Morning277 and based on this that appears to be true. They were blocked for socking in August 2012 (the call to his employer was apparently made in Jan 2013). I hope anybody reflecting on this takes time to read the vast SPI archive to see what all unfolded there before the call was made. Wood had already sucked up a lot of community resources - time people could have spent doing more contructive things. Here is the AN where Wood was community banned. This is also relevant and makes it clear that a lot of the discussions about what to do about Wood/Morning277 were held offline. Finally, I checked the archives of this page and there was no discussion here around that time. Here is the post that was made on this page when the Business Insider article appeared in Jan 2013; the next dif after the one I just gave is the one where it was removed. Quite a taunt; it is unsurprising that people responded. Jytdog (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I would be curious to hear what the WMF has to say about this serious allegation. Coretheapple (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

False information and assumptions

Removed edit from the usual banned editor. Please use the unprotected page if you'd like. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• Quote from the usual banned editor removed - Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC) - I'm willing to restore this legitimate IP query under my own handle and at my own risk in accordance with my belief that free speech and a variety of perspectives is a good thing and that censorship is not. It doesn't sound like GK's prose, for what it's worth. Carrite (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Carrite, See WP:UP#OWN "Traditionally Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit." ArbCom has made it clear several times that this applies to Jimbo's talk page.

Jimbo says at User:Jimbo Wales "Over 3,000 Wikipedians monitor my user and user talk page via a watchlist, and I trust them to edit and remove errors or attacks." i.e. that others should moderate his talk page.

I've moderated this page about 4-5 times and been dragged to ArbCom on it about 3 times. Each time they've upheld the right of Jimbo to have others moderate his talk page. And Jimbo has said there that he sees nothing wrong with my moderation. He has specifically said that others need to moderate because some folks are not there to engage in a discussion and that there are trolls who should be removed.

He has mentioned the usual banned editor specifically several times. Forcing that person's text onto this page via a quote just looks like a cheap trick trying to get around the rules.

Since Jimbo is involved in most discussions here, I think you can see why it is difficult for him to moderate this page directly himself, and why it is better to have others doing the moderation. For example you can probably imagine some trolls would love to say "Jimbo Wales kicked me off his talk page, rather than answer my questions." As a matter of fact, I've seen where the usual banned editor says that in a fourth rate online "newspaper." I don't take orders from Jimbo or anybody else on this - it is my judgement only. However, if Jimbo were to say - by any means available, public or private, that he thinks my judgement is wrong, either in general or in a specific case, then I would respect his views.

The usual banned editor can edit at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Unprotected if he just wants to communicate with Jimbo. But if he is just trying to gain attention by posting his opinions (which always degrade into trolling) on this page, rather than on his own fifth-rate website that nobody takes seriously, then just forget it. Consider it automatic that he is reverted on this page, whether a direct edit, a quote, or in Morse code sent by the Dali Lama. Of course if Jimbo wanted to quote him, that's another matter.

So feel free to ask Jimbo if you can insert the banned editor's comments - but after 10+ years of being trolled and harassed by that editor, I doubt Jimbo will agree.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, except when JImbo has not backed you up. Stop puffing yourself up this way Smallbones. I do agree with your suggestion they just ask Jimbo. Jytdog (talk) 05:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• Let's try that again. You, Smallbones, have no evidence that this IP is a "banned editor." Stop casting aspersions. We won't even get into your bullying behavior. Restoring again the IP's deleted legitimate query over my signature: removed again Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC) Fin. Carrite (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • You haven't got a leg to stand on Carrite. Just ask Jimbo if my removal of this quote is consistent with his moderation policy, or whether he would like to make an exception for this particular case. Otherwise the usual banned editor can edit on the unprotected page. But it is automatic that the usual banned editor will be reverted on this page. End. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Your position is not reasonable. You are saying that because editors foolishly agreed to the notion of creating a separate page that is left unprotected so that IPs can post to it, that authorizes you to remove a quotation by an editor in good standing because it came from a source who was able to post here. There is zero logic, not even DEA-grade logic, to connect the one with the other. Some IP believes that some people here have "perpetuated" misinformation about Mike Wood's engagement on Wikipedia and is curious whether the Wikipedia community is "solid enough" to allow him to offer corrections to that point of view, and suggests that this conflicts with claims of openness or transparency. It's not a bad argument, really. If Wikipedia is going to generate stories that reflect negatively on someone's character, they really *do* deserve opportunities for fair response, and I thought that the "open door policy" that had been advertised for this page was one such opportunity.

I should add although I do not support enactment of EU-style laws on databases and privacy, many of them are good practices, and one of these practices (codified e.g. at item 36 here) is to allow people to correct databases that reference them. Some might say that letting them mail Arbcom is a way to do that, but it's not so. To illustrate: I were to post something libelous about Mr. Wood or anyone else, ArbCom would not actually take responsibility for it; they might take it down if they don't like it, but if they decided it was OK, even if a court disagreed, they would not be held liable for that either. And - thank God - Wood would not have any easy mechanism to send me cease and desist letters in the mail, either. The downside of that though is that here I could be, typing away data about Wood to go on some Wikipedia long term abuse page, and it could be complete balderdash, and short of getting a subpoena and going to WMF and then my internet provider, he doesn't have a route to correct it. I would be the one maintaining that database, not ArbCom, not Wikipedia, at least on that day. Unless, that is, we let him post somewhere on Wikipedia and simply tell me "@Wnt:, that story is wrong, and here's why." He could ping me, or he could post here or on his talk page and someone else could tell me, and that way I might be talked out of believing something bad about him before it even rises to the point of libel. This should pretty clearly be to our interest, and his, and there is no great downside to it, because we don't have to let him post everywhere, just somewhere. Oh sure, someone could use the mechanism to harass, but there are a lot more straightforward ways to harass! Wnt (talk) 11:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

As I recall the drama that ensued in the past on this, Jimbo has explicitly delegated to other editors the monitoring of his talk page for removal of banned editors he doesn't want on this page. I personally wouldn't engage in such activity as I think it is wearisome, but if he wants to he has Jimbo's backing. That's been explicitly stated. Coretheapple (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you truly know this is a particular banned editor Jimbo said he doesn't want, I guess I can't really tell you you're wrong to delete him here; yet I think it's important that any editor, even a banned one, has an open door policy somewhere to help head off trouble. Wnt (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• Anyone smart enough to edit WP can easily find the IP's question in the history. And the sanctimonious, thuggish, axe-grinding, edit-warrior behavior of some overwrought people is also readily evident to anyone who can read. Carrite (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• OK then @Jimbo Wales:. I for one could care less if his page is festooned with socks and trolls. I can't understand why people bother with them. Coretheapple (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Focus on pages with technical errors or disputes

As we have discussed for years, the Wikipedia community tends to be "self-correcting" to quickly fix most problems in popular pages, except for technical issues (such as template errors) or content disputes (almost nitpicking or pettifogging over technicalities of the wording). Meanwhile, as seen by the pages in the list wp:POPULARLOWQUALITY (as pages with actually fairly high-quality content), each page when viewed many times, will attract enough editors to soon update the problems as quickly as general readers increase the pageviews. The real problem, where editors should focus extra attention, is to fix obscure template errors, technical details or calculations, or help resolve content disputes (often a case of nitpicking what to say in a page). For example, those 200,000 glaring red-error cite messages need to be fixed in popular pages (to remove "Check date values in: access-date") for wp:CS1 cite date-format errors, in the top pages among searching 28,000 various pages. The main goal is to find major technical problems in popular pages, rather than worry about general quality levels, which tend to be self-correcting by pageview level, as long as any technical or nitpicking content-dispute problems are fixed by special attention. I guess the general rule is: Nitpicking about issues, format or template data is the greatest source of glaring errors in articles. Long term, we need to reduce the nitpicking, to allow more viewpoints, and autofix template data, but the nitpickers tend to argue about the need to nitpick the issues. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to give editors a ration of some number of edits they can make to an article per month. This would then push editors toward making larger edits instead of making many small edits. Count Iblis (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

A ration? Really? Personally I tend to do both. I create pages and do minor corrections (listed here for instance). Bots can do a lot of this work, but in some cases it needs human intervention. Karst (talk) 10:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed a single correction could fix a glaring error, such as duplicate wp:reftag name "autogenerated1" could be fixed as "autogenerated2" to remove a hideous reftag error message from a major page. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not consider the rate at which systemic biases are addressed to be particularly quick. There are several WP:BACKLOG categories full of errors far more glaring and higher priority than technical template issues. EllenCT (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, the problem with wp:BACKLOG is the numerous pages already fixed where removal of their backlog-tags is the real "backlog" due to the tedious complexity of judging when a page is good-enough to clear a backlog entry. Imagine the frustration for an editor who edits several backlog pages and cannot find any problems now. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't have to imagine, as I remember it, but I think most backlog characterization templates are valid. Do you want to try a small sample tally to estimate the percentages of issues corrected without accuracy tag removals? EllenCT (talk) 12:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The over-reach of tagging among the wp:BACKLOG categories varies by type, where the copy-edit category has typically been correct over 98% of the time (perhaps because so many details only get fixed when untagging), while other categories still list many pages already fixed, which should have been untagged. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia age: Peter Thonemann on The all-conquering Wikipedia?

Maybe, we all love/hate it. At any rate, will this "monopoly", finally force experts to get on board. [4] Peter Thonemann gives an interesting take including:

An army of anonymous, tech-savvy people – mostly young, mostly men – have effortlessly assembled and organized a body of knowledge unparalleled in human history. “Effortlessly” in the literal sense of without significant effort: when you have 27,842,261 registered editors (not all of them active, it is true), plus an unknown number of anonymous contributors, the odd half-hour here and there soon adds up to a pretty big encyclopedia. . . Given the manner of its compilation, the accursed thing really is a whole lot more reliable than it has any right to be...No doubt this particular case does not matter all that much. But it does illustrate some of the benefits, and many of the perils, of the brave new world of crowd-sourced online reference. Wikipedia did, eventually, get to the right answer, but it took its time about it. One of the main worries about Wikipedia is not that its content does not improve over time (it clearly does), but that it gets ­better so much more slowly than anyone would have predicted back in 2006 or 2007. . . Instead of grumbling, perhaps we ought to spend a bit more time editing Wikipedia ourselves."

(Thonemann, Peter, THE TIMES LITERARY SUPPLEMENT, MAY 25 2016)

Hopefully, not "all" experts or else, who but the non-experts will write about Wikipedia from the outside? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

' “Effortlessly” in the literal sense of without significant effort' - I personally disagree with that. As far "One of the main worries about Wikipedia is not that its content does not improve over time (it clearly does), but that it gets ­better so much more slowly than anyone would have predicted," I wish I'd said that myself. The odd thing about it is that it seems that new articles, in their very first year, are on average better than the average old article (I should check this in more detail). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I think he is right in the aggregate (and really, you can improve Wikipedia in just a few minutes). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The more power Wikipedia has, the more vulnerable it becomes. We already have people talking about the "toxic community" in the discussion below and paid editing in the discussion above, and the more authoritative Wikipedia becomes, the worse these problems get. But even beyond the relevantly benevolent agenda of spam and bias that we face there, we have the deeper existential crisis of the U.S. sliding into increasing economic inequality under a command economy based on intellectual property.

The situation with Peter Thiel funding a third-party lawsuit against Gawker may well represent the shattering of an innocence - one in which we hoped that the very wealthy would, for whatever reasons, be more or less quiescent working only via paid intermediaries for small amounts of money. Under that innocence, Wikipedia imagined it could follow U.S. law and be safe; but this is no longer a country of laws, but a country of oligarchs.

Of course, Wikipedia can put up a substantial defense against attack - the question is whether its leaders take more after Poland or the advisors of Czechoslovakia. Do you roll over quietly when an oligarch tells you he wants this and that taken out of his article? Do you do it again when he comes back and complains his company needs better treatment, and you should stop featuring his opponents, and crack down on gay propaganda?

The only way to avoid apocalypse is to be ready, at a moment's notice, to go to Defcon 1, turn every key, launch every nuke - and this requires also a plan to survive after the war is over. The Internet was such a plan, because it was to be decentralized; but for that to work Wikipedia must actually be decentralized, with the mirrors already up and under independent authority, so that even if a truly terrible court order is filed today there is someone able to continue operations tomorrow. And part of that involves being ready to give up the administrative monopoly and the power it holds, particularly the power to conceal "deleted" contributions. Wnt (talk) 11:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Of course, as Wikipedia gets more successful, the work gets harder and the opponents of a decentralized NPOV have more to aim at. Decentralizing administration is as easy as creating a fork. Some of that is out there already, but how much would a full scale fork in Canada or Sweden cost? Of course much of that could be raised thru online donations, but that starts the very beginnings of a potential conflict with the WMF. Different administration also means that there would be different policies, or at least different people administrating them - so it wouldn't be the "same Wikipedia."

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Cell phone study and cancer link

A new study was just released showing a link between cell phones and cancer Wall Street Journal 5/27/2016. It will be interesting to see if this is covered as NPOV. I have a feeling a bunch of "neutral" "pro-science" editors will make sure it gets buried, say it is too new, WP:OR, WP:Fringe, a "primary study", WP:UNDO and every excuse possible to keep the news from messing with cell phones sales. And any editor trying to insert it will be labelled an anti-cell phone activist, WP:SPA, disruptive, lacking competence or works for some industry that competes with cell phones... Well, let's go see... --David Tornheim (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, it is a primary study, and partial results, and not peer reviewed yet. Also 6 Watts per kilogram far exceeds the FCC's limit of 1.6 W/kg. PMID 23320534 is the most recent WP:MEDRS-grade peer reviewed literature review on the subject, which you can see has plenty of very clear warnings fully congruent with your apparent opinion on the topic. We follow WP:PSTS generally, or I wish we did, anyway. EllenCT (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The draft report itself says that the partial results themselves have been peer reviewed. See [5][6] and for balance [7] for secondary sources on this report. I agree that due to the high levels of exposure used, not to mention some of the apparently arbitrary findings on longevity, this study can never do more than highlight the need for a better one - and that has been highlighted many times already. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

PMID 9085432 has a clue, but it's getting a little stale for MEDRS. EllenCT (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

As presented, this is unconvincing. The main problem, as identified by the first reviewer in the document linked, is that multiple comparisons were made, increasing the risk of a chance result. Remember, in biology the culture is to publish data that is 5% likely to happen by chance, which is definitely not five or six sigmas like in particle physics, and so when you compare multiple test conditions to multiple controls and work statistics on them, it can get very risky that you come up with something meaningless. My own peeve (Maxwell Lee goes into this one) is that there is just one control group, no larger than the various test conditions, and so there's a lot riding on that happening to come out zero. The others certainly vary greatly (and it is not really dose dependent in most of the tables). I understand that the control tests in part how good their particular tech is at spotting lesions, but I feel like the rate still shouldn't be that much of a mystery; aren't there any other experiments, any other drugs or tests, done in that building or university by people using comparable methods and food that could have been arranged to serve as something of a verification of the control? (Lee points out the usual rate is around 1.5%)

I should add that I actually think it's likely there is a risk, but I don't like how these studies are designed. They should not be trying to duplicate a phone and look for rare cancers; they should have strong microwave/terahertz sources that are tunable and monochromatic and scan through the frequencies carefully. If there is an effect, presumably it works by displacing proteins from DNA or from binding one another, so there might be one particular frequency your phone sometimes uses that has a noticeable health effect while others don't. That effect wouldn't have to be cancer; it could be anything that can be caused by misregulating a protein. I would bet money various militaries are working on this hard - they already are interested in using terahertz, for example, to tell if bacteria in the air are anthrax based on the sequence specificity of absorption. The question is, if a piece of DNA specifically interacts, can it be targeted and what can you do with that? They might use this, say, to cause depression in a particular group of political opponents targeted from drones. But if that is possible, this kind of study will never figure it out. Wnt (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The link between cell phones and cancer is a hypothesis that for many years has been in a desperate search for the data to support it. Count Iblis (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Motherboard article about suicidal Wikipedia editor

Wikipedia Editor Says Site’s Toxic Community Has Him Contemplating Suicide Thought this might be interesting, nay, disturbing, to regular readers of this page. The editor in question claims he became suicidal because "Nobody on Wikipedia seems to be kind," and "You [i.e. Wikipedia editors] are all so busy power tripping that you forget there is a real, live person on the other side." This he says resulted from "...an ongoing disagreement with other editors on the “talk” pages of an article about a local politician. The debate devolved into name-calling, the editor wrote, and eventually he was completely banned from editing the site he had devoted so much time to." This suggests that WP:BITE may be an even more serious problem than commonly believed. Everymorning (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Issues with situations such as these are often complex. Not thrilled about this one being aired more. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars, and should be enforced aggressively, especially upon admins. and especially against passive aggressive , sarcastic and other nasty edits. That will quickly solve this ridiculously persistent problem, I think. Excuses about intensity, passion, zealousness etc., e.g. "The community is intense and passionate, which means its editors are often zealous in their policing" are total B.S. and lead to acceptance of the status quo which is not acceptable. We must keep moving forward and that means a zero tolerance for incivility of any kind going forward from this point in time. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm gonna push back a little. Not a lot, just a little. Count me as a big fan of civility; I try to live it but, being human, occasionally backslide. My pushback isn't because I think incivility is fine, or even that I worry that I might get caught in a bad moment. My pushback is motivated more by the fact that absolutist policies such as "zero tolerance for X" almost invariably turn into Kafkaesque idiocy. I was tempted to recite some examples of zero-tolerance policies gone bad but I don't want this to devolve into a political discussion, so I will simply assert that for just about any zero-tolerance policy it is easy to find evidence of absurdity arising from them.

Anyone who is ever tried to write rules whether Wikipedia or elsewhere quickly learns the near impossibility of writing absolutist rules. Wikipedia is taking, in my opinion, a generally reasonable approach, with guidelines that are short of absolute, and IAR to help cover the true exceptions. Any attempt to create a zero-tolerance policy will be the beginning of the end of this place.--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is how Satan sends jerks to Hell

I would not be surprised if Satan danced with joy to see admins and zealous editors ruthlessly condemning other editors in vicious tag-teams of hateful, self-righteous whatevers. In that Motherboard article, "Wikipedia Editor Says Site’s Toxic Community Has Him Contemplating Suicide" the phrase "power trip" seems to relate to powerful editors, such as admins, being blamed for the toxic Wikipedia environment. The Wisdom of the Ages has warned, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" and I still think WP needs to implement term-limits for admins so if they anger enough people, then they will not get re-approved, and if they cannot live with that limitation, then they should not be admins on Wikipedia. There is no intelligence test for admins (zero, nada, nichts, none), there is no systematic review of their judgmental actions, and the longer admins remain in power, the stronger the tendency toward corruption in the use of their power. Forgetting people becomes very, very easy in such a system of endless power. It is a sad situation, paved with the suffering of many trampled editors. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see Tree of the knowledge of good and evil#Religious views, [8], and PMID 25328772. EllenCT (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Just want to note that the subsection title implies that the editor who was suicidal (living in a form of hell) is a jerk. I suggest you change it. Jytdog (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

My reading was that "jerks" referred to admins, but maybe I misread. In any event, count me in support of some form of term limits (my proposal would be that all admins have to spend some period of time as a non-admin on occasion - might be insightful.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

We need reliable sources for what Satan does, the post above is just OR. -Roxy the dog™ woof 20:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@S Philbrick. I agree with you. Furthermore, I have suggested elsewhere that those applying to be an admin should spend some time in a Topic Ban of their favoured subject, or even a Site Ban, to understand the implications and consequences of them imposing these on editors. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2016

• News and notes: Upcoming Wikimedia conferences in the US and India; May Metrics and Activities Meeting

• Special report: Compensation paid to Sue Gardner increased by almost 50 percent after she stepped down as executive director

• In the media: The perils of Wikipedia's monopoly; Wikipedians' fragility; Street Sharks hoax

• Featured content: Eight articles, three lists and five pictures

• Op-ed: Journey of a Wikipedian

• Arbitration report: Gamaliel resigns from the arbitration committee

• Recent research: English as Wikipedia's Lingua Franca; deletion rationales; schizophrenia controversies

• Traffic report: Splitting (musical) airs / Slow Ride

• Blog: Freely licensed magic at Eurovision

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Journalists to benefit advertisers

Time Inc. evaluates the work of its journalists on the basis of its benefit to advertisers.

• Time Inc. Now Judging Writers Based On Their Benefit To Advertisers, Because Life Is Terrible—Huffington Post (August 18, 2014)

—Wavelength (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

"The highest and primary obligation of ethical journalism is to serve the public. Journalists should... Deny favored treatment to advertisers, donors or any other special interests, and resist internal and external pressure to influence coverage; Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two. Prominently label sponsored content." -- Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics. EllenCT (talk) 15:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. See Code of ethics in media#Society of Professional Journalists: Code of Ethics.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Is there an impartial entity evaluating news organizations on the basis of their adherence to ethics?

—Wavelength (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikivillages of Cameroon

Need help. User:David.moreno72 is interfering with new users creating articles for Wikipedia:Wikivillages of Cameroon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by De Geescht vum Herer (talk • contribs) 22:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

See also User talk:Charlipro for how rude and disrespectful this new editor was treated by others. They were accused of vandalism and treated like a criminal for participating in a sanctioned Wikipedia contest and creating a new article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by De Geescht vum Herer (talk • contribs) 22:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Where to begin. First off, sign your posts when you are talking on talk pages. This can be done with four tildas ~~~~. Second, Jimbo does not deal with conduct disputes. Third, have you read the response that David gave you on their talk page? Just because something is part of a competition does not equate to immediate acceptance of the material. It still must follow our policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. You need to continue discussing this with David before you do anything else. And certainly before complaining to Jimbo who does not deal with this stuff anyways. --Majora (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Where to begin indeed! Just where do you get off talking to and treating people like this? There is collaborative editing on this topic from three different editors whom David Moreno ignored!