Jump to content

User talk:Jimbo Wales

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 99.0.80.70 (talk) at 20:12, 23 November 2012 (→‎Commons:Deletion requests/File:Naser al-Din Shah slide 1.jpg: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


(Manual archive list)

Economics graph removed from several articles

The graph in question

Jimbo, File:Employment growth by top tax rate.jpg has been removed from several articles recently by people who say it is biased politically. However, it is not clear whether the people who have been removing it are similarly biased against the conclusion which is suggests. Please see the discussions at Talk:Economics for more information. Jimbo, can you please have someone see whether [1] and [2] are factually accurate, to settle this? 70.59.27.75 (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content dispute and not for me to decide. But speaking as an ordinary editor, the graph is absolutely and totally biased to the point of absurdity. Such oversimplifications to make a political point are the very definition of bias. The data was taken from US historical data and so ends up being a comparison of an era when the top tax rate was 80-90% to various modern eras. But that 80-90% era coincided with the post-war boom, which was caused by a large number of factors, which may or may not have included tax rates on the highest earners.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is an IP sock of Dualus (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dualus - Alison ❤ 19:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This graph has also been removed from several articles since the US elections.

Jimbo, I am certain that if our positions were reversed, I would want you to tell me about Art Okun's mistake in 1975 in which he used year-over-year correlations instead of run lengths which is why the IMF recently radically reversed their position on austerity and many commentators suggest they did not go far enough. The graph is historically accurate, and in complete agreement with the new IMF anti-austerity position which had been pro-austerity since Art Okun's 1975 math error was identified and corrected last year. What governs income inequality more than the top effective tax bracket rate? Again, there is no doubt in my mind that if our positions were reversed I would expect no less than complete (and persistent!) honesty on such topics, whether they concern the toxicity of heavy metals or the plain truth about the position of the peak of the Laffer curve. There is a correct mathematical answer which may not be politically comfortable, but is by definition free from bias. I suggest that those who insist against evidence that the peak of the Laffer curve is less than 0.5 are in fact more biased than the accurate historical information on the graph. I am sorry if this is uncomfortable, but it is the truth, it is verifiable, and it is easy for anyone to prove it by examining the veracity of [3] and [4] (which are summarized in this deleted section.) 199.16.130.122 (talk) 05:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jimmy is right that the graph tendentiously implies causation between marginal tax rates and economic growth in different eras of 20th century American capitalism. Life is more complex. One could generate bar graphs of similar quality relating the average number of television channels on American televisions to economic growth (fewer channels = more growth). That's probably at least as high a correlation, I speculate — but it's a false relationship, there is no necessary causation there, rather declining growth rates are a function of time and the gradual disintegration of industrial manufacturing in the United States. I'm actually chiming in here to offer assistance to Dualus back into the WP fold if at some future date he wants to move past the POV axe-grinding, edit-warring, and sword-crossing with ideological opponents and to become a serious contributor of NPOV historical material. It's probably a six month or one year process getting back into good graces, I would guess, and will absolutely require a fundamental change in attitude as to what WP is about and one's place in it. But glancing at your edit history, there seems to be a good amount of energy, dedication, and commitment, albeit misdirected. Drop me an email if you want to talk. MutantPop@aol.com. best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 05:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This graph, redone by a non-banned user, has not been systematically deleted (yet.)
So do you believe, then, that the IMF was in error to reverse their position on austerity last month? In any case, thank you for your kind offer. I am sorry that you believe the use of mathematical proof techniques and adherence to their results is tendentious. My contributions stand on their own, and although I concentrate on controversial articles, I fully realize that these sorts of accusations come with such an interest. The vast bulk of my efforts stand unchallenged, and for those who question my commitment to improving the encyclopedia, I would point to my recent GA on Birth control ("before" version) as representative of the typical quality of my ordinary work here which does not get swept up in silly censorship games. 199.16.130.122 (talk) 06:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been involved through third opinion with a related content dispute on Trickle-down economics. My general advice then and now is that these primary source graphs are often being used in a way that constitutes synthesis. This sort of graph should not be used to draw conclusions or imply arguments about the validity of any particular economic policy. Even the combination of two series such as the above graph is original research. I see very little use for such an OR graph in any article. Gigs (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The synthesis argument is not convincing because this particular controversy is central to the current most prominent political debate in Washington, D.C.[5][6][7] It is very easy to find prominent eminent authorities who agree with the proposition that raising taxes on the rich creates jobs. Similarly, I can find no sources saying that raising taxes on the rich slows the economy or job growth which are based on empirical data. There are plenty of op-eds and publications in WP:FRINGE "Austrian economics" journals, but nothing peer reviewed by mainstream academic journals. Do you know of any? 81.169.144.135 (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I don't think the graph represents either a biased or incorrect view. The only thing it says to me is that as tax rates go up, job growth is relatively unaffected. Are you folks saying the left scale is exaggerated? It is, but the size of the numbers themselves is sufficiently obvious to make that issue unimportant to me. Sure the variations in tax structure over the years make any comparison difficult and I would like to see more detail, but I doubt the higher granularity would make a difference. The argument is that top tax rate doesn't stifle growth. This may be because the top tax rate affects a tiny portion of the population that is more concerned with wealth management than income. I'm saying that as an old person who is more interested in managing wealth. Bob Calder 17:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by B calder (talk • contribs)

  • The general issue here is whether "original research" should trump sources when removing material. If you have a reliable source that says that raising taxes creates jobs, or an herb is helpful against a disease, etc., does the naysaying editor's general belief and assumption that "that can't work", in the absence of any cited source that says it doesn't work, override your source because "it must be biased somehow"? This was also the issue in the great VnT debate. When there are sources to say that something works and it doesn't work, obviously the best solution is "these say yes(ref) and these say no(ref)"; but when an editor has no source obviously the only "neutral" solution available to him is to expunge all data that conflicts with his POV. Wnt (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Minor point, but the example here isn't suggesting that raising taxes creates jobs (the overall tax rate as a percent of GDP has been remarkably constant in the US over centuries), but whether shifting the tax burden to high income earners creates jobs. I think it is strictly helpful to the encyclopedia and its readers to support the theory prevalent in the peer reviewed academic journal reviews and the historical data when they are agreement, even when there is a huge amount of paid advocacy from the rich in opposition. I hope Jimbo recognizes this. 71.215.79.206 (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A graph that, unlike the two previous ones, is totally unbiased. Argh.

I hope that the above chart clears up any confusion. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Income equality had a more beneficial impact on economic growth than trade openness, sound political institutions, and foreign investment. Berg, Andrew G.; Ostry, Jonathan D. (2011). "Equality and Efficiency". Finance and Development. 48 (3). International Monetary Fund.
I understand that those who are politically opposed to the proposition that raising taxes on the rich creates jobs would like to rebut the historical data and the theory of the academic hegemony reflected in the first graph above which has been removed from more than a dozen articles. I also understand that there is no substantial opposing data or theory in reliable sources since Dr. Okun's 1975 error was caught last year. The clumsy pirates-vs-temperature attempt at an implication that there is no causation or correlation is strictly false as explained in [8], in particular its Chart 4 shown to the right. I look forward to the day when Wikipedia economics content disputes are decided by those who do not hold ideology above accuracy. 207.224.47.134 (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the average net rate on total income does not appear to be linked to higher economic growth at all. During the 91% marginal rate years, the average net rate was reduced by the tremendous use of non-taxable income, deductions, and tax shelters. There was no "alternative minimum tax" in those days. Also the economic growth during WW II and Korea is included in that "graph" which makes reliance on it fatuous entirely. GDP growth rate (measured quarterly) in 1950 to 1951 was over 15%, and exceeded in 1978 (16.7%) If lower tax rates reduce growth, then why is the highest growth found in a year with lower tax rates? Three of the top 5 years were in WW II ... 1942, +18.5%, 1941, +17.1%, 1943, +16.4% -- which skew a graph which conveniently starts in 1940. One m might note that the top bracket in the US was raised to 63% in 1932. Yet the "growth rates" under what you state to provablby be good for the economy in that year before the graph was -13.1%. And 1946 (end of WW II) saw a 10.9% contraction with your higher tax rates. This is not "political opposition" it is statistical opposition to a grossly misleading "graph." Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also the "job growth" figure is also substantially affected by the choice of 1940 -- guess what happens to employment during wars? Oh? Collect (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you start at 1945, the last bar of File:Employment growth by top tax rate.jpg goes down slightly rather than up slightly on the right, more closely reflecting File:LafferCurve.svg with which it shares the same outputs (job wages growth, economic growth, and tax revenue) and similar inputs (top tax bracket rate instead of tax rate.) File:Federal Income Tax Rates in the US, 2009.jpg helps explain an aspect of the relation. 207.224.47.134 (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But that's exactly the point — why start at 1945? Why not 1919, at the end of WWI? Why not 1974, at the end of the Vietnam war? If one is showing a valid correlation between top end marginal tax rates and economic growth, it shouldn't matter where one "cuts the tape"... Why is 1945 sacred? Because that's the only date where a high correlation can be shown. The correlation is real for that brief interval of history, but ballyhooing this correlation implies a false causality. I'm not joking to have said a similar (albeit negative) correlation number could be generated comparing the number of television sets to economic growth rates, failed attempt a pirate graph above notwithstanding... Disclaimer: I'm a socialist and would like to see nothing better than a 70% marginal tax rate at about $1M of income, a shutting down of the massive "capital gains" loophole, etc. But I'd also sooner shove lima beans up my nose than try to make cheap, ephemeral political "points" by foisting dubious and tendentious graphs on the project to advance this personal set of values. Carrite (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to see a series of such graphs with different ending and beginning years? A high correlation can be shown for most such graphs. Do you know of any reasons that [9] or [10] may be factually inaccurate? 75.166.195.241 (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

D. Thompson (Nov. 20, 2012) "Rich People Who Don't Understand Taxes Should Be Told So" The Atlantic relates to this issue, as does L. French (Nov. 20, 2012) "Tax loopholes alone can't solve fiscal cliff" Politico. 207.224.47.134 (talk) 04:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Feed the poor. Eat the rich" ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
R. Bolling (November 21, 2012) "Bill O'Reilly's Nightmare" Tom The Dancing Bug. 207.224.47.134 (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, over the years I have appealed to you on many subjects. Perhaps you are wondering why I have not made a more direct appeal. Are you aware of the extent to which your administrators use censorship to suppress points of view they find uncomfortable without regard to the truth, and the extent to which administrators coddle those who litter racial and sexist epithets, denigrating the project? 75.166.195.241 (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons admins asleep at the switch?

Jimbo, I started a thread on the Commons' admin noticeboard to alert them to a fairly easy to spot pattern of copyright violation. During that discussion, I posted several examples with evidence that they were copyright violations. Some of those were subsequently nominated for deletion and deleted, as expected. What seems concerning is that other examples I gave have not been deleted or even nominated for deletion. In one case, that involves a set of over 100 copyright violation images. If telling admins on the admin noticeboard that something on Commons is a copyright violation doesn't provoke any action, something is seriously wrong. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're of course welcome to hunt down copyright violations, and it looks like half of the files you've identified actually are. But the people who disagreed with you did so because they didn't think some files were copyvios, and figuring out if they are is complicated. Your "pattern" is something that you and other volunteers you recruit are free to use in looking for further infringing files - but if you're suggesting anything more, i.e. to abandon the assumption of good faith based on what a contributor's interests are, then that is a bad idea. Wnt (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wnt, once again you have managed to misunderstand what is being said. I am not suggesting that we abandon good faith based on someone's "area of interest". I am suggesting that uploads which follow a certain pattern are very likely to be copyright violations as I have demonstrated in that thread and elsewhere. The interests and intentions of the uploader are completely irrelevant. We are not talking about users who have misunderstood the copyrights involved - we are talking about deliberate and wilful copyright violation (including in some cases image manipulation to make sources harder to find and falsification of EXIF data). There is nothing complicated about the 100+ images uploaded by User:Freemont Solstice. Despite the filenames, the images have been available from many sources (here, for example) since 2010. That user is likely a sockpuppet of a repeat offender. Why are these images still on Commons? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you suspect this user of being a copyright violator and sockpuppet, why is the only message on his talk page a completely unjustified warning that "Commons has a specific scope". (That is some lovely artwork from a notable public event that is most definitely within scope) Since all of Fremont Solstice's uploads are photos of this one event, I have no idea how you decided he's a sockpuppet, but he certainly hasn't had a chance to defend himself. Wnt (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you are trying to say. Users cannot delete their own uploads. I have told the Commons admins that the uploads are copyright violations and provided evidence for my claim. They have failed to act. This has nothing to do with Commons scope in any way - copyright violation is a legal issue, not a content issue. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The images you reported depict public nudity. In cases like this, Commons admins are likely to suspect prudery as the prime motivation and tend to be less rigorous in investigating. This is to be expected, and in cases of copyvio in situations like this you need to push harder. Herostratus (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User education is the first and most important line of defense against copyvio uploads. If you spot them and you don't contact the user involved, you're wasting most of your effort. Contacting the user is also the best way to get OTRS tickets or other evidence that files are actually not copyvios. Wnt (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wnt, what part of this is confusing you? These are uploads of copyright violating material by throw-away accounts (some of which are very likely sockpuppets). On a different subject, how about instead of making nonsensical comments every time I post something here, you stick to the ridiculous troll bait reference desks? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DC, are you pointing to a generally cavalier attitude among Commons admins toward copyright law or is there a pattern to it; for example, is it uploader-related (they tolerate their own or their mates' violations) or topic-related as Herostratus suggests, or is it mainly breaches of a particular section of the law? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its a combination of all of them. First - Herostratus is right that certain topics get less investigation due to their nature. Adult/nudity especially. Its certain if something x-rated gets nominated, bad faith & prude accusations will be thrown at the nominator very quickly. Second - as many of the admins on commons are heavily 'invested' in the adult/nudity area, you have to fight against that in order to get anyone to listen. And finally - even if you manage to negotiate those first two hurdles above, and provide a legitimate legal reason it should be removed, the apathy from the general admin corps is just depressing. There are a few people who take it seriously, but when you have other admins who work to get someone banned from nominating copyvios for deletion, despite the validity of their arguments, under the premise they shouldnt be 'harrassing' regular commons editors... Its a mess. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reliable estimate of the scale of the problem, the percentage of Commons files that breach copyright? Are we talking Napster, Youtube, less? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable? Not that I have seen. As a total amount of uploaded files, anecdotally its quite low. However once you start drilling down to subject level - within that subject copyvio incidences can be quite high. The adult/nudity area gets a lot of attention by its nature, so its always going to skew the numbers either way. What it really needs is a full audit by subject. So audit 2% of files in each area and work your way up to a site-wide score. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could pay someone to do that; and maybe get them to assess the percentage and characteristics of violating files nominated for deletion that are not deleted. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) I would offer my services, but I dont think the WMF would be willing to pay my fees ;) It would be a solution however. Some sort of research grant maybe. In terms of auditing, it would be relatively simple to do once the list of files to be looked at is identified. Can probably knock up a script to pick X random files out of a catagory easily. (There is probably one already). I might try doing a very small-scale test on the weekend. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I would be very (positively) surprised if the WMF were prepared to fund an impartial study looking into this point, there's no harm in asking. Andreas JN466 01:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Well, I'll ask anyway. Do you know who the contact would be? Do they have a research department? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not offhand. You could ask Jimbo. :) Andreas JN466 08:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to happen. The kind of people qualified to do reasonable assessments of copyright infringement are bloody expensive. In truth the heavy copyvio sources are already well known. Adult content (although the actual percentage isn't that high due to all the penis photos, PD stuff and the suicide girl stuff), current even imagery and public figures where we don't realdy have a pic (for example File:Тед Кинг.jpg is probably a copyvio).©Geni 10:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The 'it will be too expensive' line wont fly given the WMF's public financials. They clearly have the money, its getting them to use it thats the problem. They could employ one person for a year at $100,000 to do a decent audit, and it would be a drop in the ocean of their available funds. (But they would be able to get someone to do it for much cheaper than that anyway) Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
$100K is a pretty significant chunk of money and wouldn't cover the cost of a year's work of a serious copyright lawyer (rather than the copyrights nerds relying on a mix of instinct and bitter experience while hastily googling for a copy of belizean copyright law that we use on a day to day basis). incidentally I know some people consider this impolite but I've long since grown tied of certian types of game playing. Who's sock are you?©Geni 23:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be in the public's interest to know the percentage and estimated number of files that are offered as free by Wikimedia Commons, but are in actual fact copyrighted and hosted improperly. It would also be in the long-term interest of the Foundation, as reliable data on this point might lead to preventative efforts and related changes in policies. Andreas JN466 13:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was not trying to suggest anything about Commons admins in general, but I agree with what others have said here. Perhaps Commons admins are not in the habit of reading their noticeboard, but it seems odd that after my identification of a string of copyright violations which have been deleted, some admin wouldn't take the five minutes required to look at the evidence I have provided and delete the files. Mattbuck did helpfully suggest that I file a deletion request, though. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would take a while. Files are too old for special:nuke and in any case its kinda questionable if commons admins have the power to deletion on that kind of scale without going through a request for deletion.©Geni 10:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of keep asking this at every discussion about commons and porn, but why, again, do we allow porn images of identifiable people to be uploaded by brand new accounts who merely add a {{pd}} tag to it and nothing more? It's blatantly obvious that a great deal of these images are taken from random sites on the internet and uploaded to commons. It's so irritating that nothing's being done about this on commons. --Conti|✉ 12:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could ask our researcher to measure the percentage of nudity/porn images that fit that category. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My personal opinion is that allowing anyone to upload images and have them immediately available for reuse will inevitably lead to copyright issues. Admins and/or trusted users should be vetting the files for quality, scope, and copyright status before they are available off-site. Short of that, Commons admins should be aware of clues to copyright violation, which was the purpose of the original discussion on Commons. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True. But the potential damage is far greater when it comes to nude/pornographic pictures of identifiable people, and as such we should not treat those exactly the same as the others. --Conti|✉ 14:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commons admin Rd232 has been trying to make the same point on Commons. While I agree, conflating copyright violation issues (legal) with other concerns (moral) is problematic, especially on Commons where there is a knee-jerk reaction to any attempt to delete anything relating to nudity or sexuality. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you ever actually nominate those Fremont images for deletion? Your thesis here is that Commons is full of copyvios, which you base on an argument about the dates these files were posted to other free photo sites and that an editor (who you have not contacted on his talk page either) added a page with the name "userpage" to the uploader's userpage. Someone has to actually evaluate evidence like this, not just delete because you said so. Commons admins have to actually consider the real possibility that this user is the one who took the photo series and posted it in various free places around the web, and give him a chance to respond. Everyone knows that people upload a lot of copyvio material to Commons, and volunteers are needed to root it out, but if you don't propose it for deletion then it's no surprise if it doesn't get deleted. Wnt (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wnt, anyone familiar with my history of identifying copyright violations (and sockpuppets) should act "just because I said so". :) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the moral issues could very quickly become a legal issue. I get your point, though, we should treat these problems separately. I think we can do more with the moral issue, though. Commons assumes good faith both in terms of copyright issues (if they add a CC-tag, it's assumed they have the rights) and in terms of moral issues (commons assumes the models gave consent and know which license the pictures would have, and what that actually means). I'm fine with assuming good faith about copyright issues (how else would commons be able to work?), but I'd rather not assume good faith that any porn image uploaded by a brand new user has no problems whatsoever. --Conti|✉ 19:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be inclined to differentiate here between people photographed in private and people who choose in advance to go nude at a public event. The risk of former lovers and others posting intimate snaps that were never intended to be published is real and we need to be hyper cautious about things which could be such images. But as far as nude photographs go, the least risky are surely those such as Delicious Carbuncle's examples of people who go to a public event clad only in body paint. There is a separate issue about copyvio, but my experience is that if you tag a copyvio for deletion and give a clear reason why it is a copyvio then it gets deleted. I've just checked through my deletion tags on Commons and the Commons Admins are not "asleep at the switch". ϢereSpielChequers 22:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat, I'm not talking about content - this is a copyright issue. My examples are examples of copyright violation, not examples of anything else. I've identified over 100 images that are obvious copyright violations. I did so on the Commons admin noticeboard. With evidence. And they are still on Commons. Feel free to tell me how I need submit a deletion request for those even though I've pointed them out and discussed their particulars on the admin noticeboard. And now I've discussed it here. I'm beginning to wonder if "wilfully negligent" isn't a better descriptor than "asleep". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your evidence is some site that seems to indicate the photos were uploaded sooner ... unless the site allows people to edit posts after the fact, or is otherwise inaccurate in dating? A site which has a policy "please do NOT upload any copyrighted images ... The images uploaded here become public images for which PicsCrazy cannot guarantee any privacy." [11] In other words, it is something that would need to be discussed. Your evidence apparently hasn't convinced anyone to decide to file the AfD for you. It's not like it's that hard to file one yourself. Wnt (talk) 07:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you'll get a chance to make your arguments at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Fremont Solstice. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Delicious Carbuncle, you may not have been talking about content, but I was replying to Conti who was talking about the moral issues of people photographed in the nude who might or might not have agreed to that. As for whether Commons admins are negligent about Copyright, they have processes for dealing with Copyvio, you raised the issue of copyvio on their admin noticeboard and various people have referred you to the Commons process for deleting copyvios. I've attested that I've recently used that procedure to get some copyvios deleted from Commons and my experience was that the process worked fine. So Commons has a procedure for dealing with Copvio, you've been directed to that procedure and you've been told that it works. So in what way could the Commons admins possibly be described as negligent? Also it now seems that someone else has spotted a copyvio problem with those files and has nominated them for deletion, but not only are they following the process they have also made the telling observation that there are so many different cameras involved that it is unlikely to be the work of one photographer. ϢereSpielChequers 15:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That argument is unworthy of you, Were. If here in Wikipedia I go to AN and say that I've spotted 100 articles that are straight copies off someone else's website, admins would take action of their own accord. They would not mill about in some Monty Pythonesque manner, looking at their fingernails and stating that it's nothing to do with them, because they are just volunteers, and anyway, nothing can be done until a report has been filed at WP:CP. Andreas JN466 17:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a case of "nothing can be done until a report has been filed at", as in this case what usually happens is that if someone goes to the wrong board people will direct them to the right place. That happens on Wikipedia and it happens on Commons. If the person who raises the issue is a newbie then hopefully they'll get a message such as "Thanks for that, next time can you raise them at..." with a link to the correct board. As for the point about these being straight copies off someone's website, as WNT and others have pointed out that can be complex, you need to check whether the licenses are compatible and which website is a copy of which, Commons has millions of images that were copied from other Websites - nearly two million just from the Geograph, and it is not unheard of for people to copy from Commons to other sites. So simply asserting that 100 pages are straight copies of something else isn't sufficient reason for their deletion. In this case someone else has spotted that they were taken by multiple cameras and therefore unlikely to be as per the uploaders assertion, and they have filed a deletion request and notified the uploader. ϢereSpielChequers 18:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was obvious that these were very likely to be copyright violations because they exactly followed the pattern which I had described at the beginning of the discussion. The link I provided was enough to confirm that. Had I started a deletion discussion, I would not have bothered to provide any more evidence than that and the images would have been deleted on that basis. Let's not pretend this is a complicated case - it isn't. Any Commons admin could have looked at the link I provided and deleted the images without discussion. There is no need to "vote" on copyright violation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, I do agree with the concerns, but there are good admins working diligently at Commons - it seems specifically that in the sex area at commons there are problems and there are clearly currently involved and conflicted admins that need removing from any authority there - I have recently been nominating a few obvious copyright violations (not in the sex categories though) and users/admins have been actioning them in a decent manner and many thanks for their efforts and work . Youreallycan 19:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh here we go down the rabbit hole again...
Prove it. You say that admins who comment on sexuality DRs are involved and conflicted? Offer some evidence. I am one such admin, in that I comment on and watch sexuality files. I even now have a bot tell me when new sexuality images are uploaded so I can put them on my watchlist, and (at the same time,) check for copyvios. I don't have a problem with sexuality images being deleted if they are copyright violations, I simply ask that there be some proof of it.
Consider commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Othertree - the rationale here was "too many cameras". But once we removed from consideration all the images which were derivatives of other, uncontested, Commons images, we were left with two cameras, which were taking photos in different years. No issue there - the original nominator didn't look closely enough, and so got a false positive. DC, you say your record should mean people trust you implicitly. Disregarding the fact that you only ever seem to appear on Commons in order to argue and ignore people telling you to use the processes we have set up, any admin who deleted images just because you said so would be negligent. If any other user said your photo was "a copyright violation from X", and an admin just deleted it without checking, you'd be shouting at us over that. Any deleting admin must check the evidence when making their decision.
To return to the original point - we have a process for dealing with copyright violations, please use it. Furthermore, AGF is an important principle on Wikimedia, and we try to apply it. We will not ban people instantly for uploading copyright violations. Copyright is difficult, and most people don't understand it. We AGF, delete the copyvios and tell the user what they did wrong. Then, if they persist, we ban them. But we give them the chance to change their behaviour. Many users don't take this chance, but it is important that we offer it nonetheless.
To summarise: YRC, put up or shut up. DC, we will not change our policy on new users, please use deletion requests or {{copyvio}} for obvious cases. -mattbuck (Talk) 05:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mattbuck, you should consider getting into the public relations industry. You have a natural habit of not addressing the issues that people bring up but instead talking about similar issues which are more easily defended. YRC is not talking about "sexuality images being deleted if they are copyright violations" and I did not suggest that anything uploaded by Othertree was a copyright violation. I believe YRC is referring to the reluctance of certain admins (including yourself) to delete any image depicting nudity or sexuality, but I will let them answer you. I did not and would not suggest that a new user would uploads copyrighted material be blocked. What I did suggest was that in instances which fit the pattern of copyright violation that I have described, the user be hard blocked. These are generally hot-and-run accounts which will never be used again. The intent is to reduce the number of sock puppets uploading still more copyvio. Copyright violation is not a matter which needs to be voted on. I am aware of several out-of-process deletions on Commons, but they do not relate to copyright violations. If an admin examines the evidence and mistakenly deletes an image, the user is free to contest that deletion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes DC you're right - I was referring to the reluctance of certain admins to delete any image depicting nudity or sexuality (including User:Mattbuck) - who is actually one of the main admin players in the commons sex area, as he says, he has a bot that is specifically focused on sex uploads - he must have a massive watchlist - To be a bit clearer - I am basically boycotting wiki commons because of the issues relating to sexual pictures and repeated admins there continuing to free speech the project in a sex sex sex direction - anuses with ginger hair around them - keep keep keep User:Cirt User:Mattbuck User:Russavia - these are three main commons admins that are involved in this issue - the pedobear one was finally globally indeffed blocked from all wiki projects after multiple complaints, the others are still active in the sexual deletion requests and uploads and have ongoing authority at Wiki Commons - - Youreallycan 20:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You claimed "Wnt, anyone familiar with my history of identifying copyright violations (and sockpuppets) should act "just because I said so". :)"this makes it pretty clear you don't know copyright that well.©Geni 23:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Geni. I make no claim to expertise in copyright and that discussion is not so much about copyright but about Commons policy. The situation described is at odds with both policy and guidelines as they are now written. I don't think it is helpful for Commons to accept images that are not freely licensed on Flickr, even from the copyright holder/Flickr account owner. Incidentally, User:Othertree has been blocked on Commons for sockpuppetry. Then unblocked. Then blocked again (although their main account remains unblocked). So I guess I'm right some of the time. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim was ""Wnt, anyone familiar with my history of identifying copyright violations (and sockpuppets) should act "just because I said so"" " right some of the time" or frankly even most of the time isn't good enough if you want to make that claim. Reason being is that because if you aren't the kind of copyright nerd who spends their time memorising all the weird corner cases you will end up doing a lot of damage because well have wikimedians who are that obsessive.©Geni 01:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Geni, I think I have a pretty good idea of what I meant by my own words. I am not a copyright nerd, have never claimed to be, and have no desire to be one (or to represent myself as one). Frankly, the pattern I have shown is one that could be identified by a bot (but not an edit filter, because it relies on categorization). I was not suggesting that anything should be deleted simply on my say-so, just that admins should investigate my claims. I will not always be right, but no "damage" will be done by taking a look at what I say. I'm not quite sure why we are talking at cross-purposes here, but I stand by my statement. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption

Hi Jimmy,

Is it ok for a candidate for a senior post in a chapter organization of a large silent conflict of interest? Especially if two candidate live in the same house in which a candidate owns the house and the other pays rent to the other candidate to live there? Would you consider it appropriate for these people do not have their commercial relationship to the foundation and the public disclosed, especially if these people have been applied together for money to the GAC already? Would you consider it ok that these two people were sanctioned for abusive behavior on Wikipedia, and threatened to block other member of chapter who objected to their flooding DYK with poorly written articles?

I am writing this under the wrong user name and not mentioning names as I fear retaliation from the two people involved, if they discover my identity. Ced Bix (talk) 03:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unable to comment due to the vagueness of what you are saying. It is very very difficult for me to imagine how people's private living arrangements could possibly have anything to do with anything. If you'd like to email me with details that you don't feel comfortable sharing publicly, then I might understand better what it is you are talking about.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't hard to guess who you are talking about, both in name and chapter organization. But I won't comment further, except to say that it is the true height of cowardice to register a bad-hand account from which you can feel free to cast aspersions. Resolute 15:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what this is about, but using an alternative account for edits that would be "highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle" is legitimate. "Bad-hand accounts" describe those used for disruptive activity. Wnt (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've politely asked Ced Bix on their talkpage about their other account. In the absence of an answer, I guess SPI may be the next step. Meanwhile, this now seems to be under discussion at WP:ANI#Bad faith account -- pls consider blocking as well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Communications Data Bill

First, I don't think we have an article on this UK bill even though it is quite important and has been in the press a great deal. We do have this Communications Data Bill 2008 but this is about a previous version of the bill that was not adopted.

Open Rights Group has this wiki page and this blog post which you can use to get yourself informed.

We're coming this week to a crucial moment in the politics around this bill -- the report of the Draft Communications Data Bill Joint Select Committee is due out, probably on Friday. The committee is widely expected to say negative things about the bill, but the concern is that they may not go far enough to kill it completely. I have met with Home Secretary Theresa May and others from the Home Office to repeat and explain to them in more detail what is wrong with the bill, but they are so far completely unmoved.

This is the sort of thing such that, in some time when it comes to a vote before full Parliament that I think a UK-only Wikipedia blackout would be incredibly helpful, if the community agrees. I'm going to do my best as an individual (in conjunction with various civil liberties groups in the UK and sympathetic MPs) to put pressure on the government to back down from this, but it is unclear whether that will have sufficient impact. When I said to the Home Secretary that it appears to me that the general public does not support this bill, she indicated that the general public doesn't seem to care or even be aware of it. That's where I think we can help.

The bill is really bad, and would permit the government to require wholesale collection of huge volumes of data by ISPs and others, at a positively staggering expense to the taxpayer.

I'd love to see further discussion here about how we might help to raise public awareness of this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's late, and I don't know if I'll get back to this before Friday, but here's a really slapdash start to an article: Communications Data Bill 2012. But [12] [13] are full of articles I haven't even looked at - nor have I yet described the good work of a certain Jimmy Wales in opposing it. Wnt (talk) 08:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wnt, it's a start. I made a redirect from Communications Data Bill (which was a redirect to Communications Data Bill 2008). --Atlasowa (talk) 14:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I recently tried to read up on this on-wiki, it was very confusing. There is:
It seems a bit unclear in the articles, what is (or was!) just planned and what is in force today. Having read the "Home Office Voluntary Code of Practice on Data Retention", can someone explain to me how the "Communications Data Bill 2012" can possibly be even worse? --Atlasowa (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think a key issue to be addressed here is Theresa May's claim that contact data helped save lives in 25 to 40% of 30,000 cases. This sets off my bull-O-meter, and various others online [14] but it would be nice to find an actual reliable source that pulls apart this statistic and explains it convincingly. I have no idea, but I'm suspicious she's making a reference to some kind of 999 location-finding feature, but surely there's a distinction between locating voluntary calls to police at the time of the emergency vs. 12-month old records of when you browsed Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 10:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We could definitely use some UK editors here... there's only so much I can do, and our resources seem sparse. For example, there is a "Sir Bonar Neville-Kingdom", who is credited for an extraordinary text in favor of the bill I would like to quote, if real [15] who appears to exist (in some sense) online, reputedly Data-sharing Czar or data czar of the UK; according to a purported April Fools joke ? he is proponent of a NODISS plan and the UK's first blogging Permanent Secretary ... I have no idea how much of any of this is real, how much is some kind of elaborate UK in-joke or serious disinformation. (I've since put up an orange traffic cone at Sir Bonar Neville-Kingdom) Wnt (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frederic Bourdin's article

Hello Sir; I'm looking for an open mind. Here what the problem is: My name is Frederic Bourdin and there is a Wikipedia article about me: Frederic Bourdin. For years I've been editing it using reliable sources, such as serious Newspaper and Magazine and myself knowing that of course my word would not be enough. There are four different version of my Wikipedia article: English, French, German and Russian, and I've been mainly working with the French and English version and there has never been any problems until a few months ago, let me explain: It is well known in France and in differents press article that the Father of my mother (my grandfather) was racist and because of the fact that my Father was Algerian, my grandfather wanted his daughter, my mother to have an abortion of me. This FACT is on numerous press reports, part of the film that was made about me The imposter and else. It's also on the French version of Wikipedia. So I edited the English version "of me" in the truth interest but: an editor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bbb23 stopped me to put this information in the article because, he say that I should not be quoted no matter how reliable and sourced those quotes are. I was angry because of that and I threatened him with legal action, I did not know that it was forbidden in Wikipedia's rules so I was blocked. I decided to create a new account and I was blocked again and then I decided to wait for the blockage to end and when it did I edited the article again using as an argument that I could quote myself as long that it was supported by reliable sources and... I was blocked again for "evading the block" and I did not since it did run's out... But never mind, I think that all this is very unfair. I only want the true to be printed and my ignorance about Wikipedia's rules deserved me but I think that the editing should be put again and stand (since it's true and confirmed by reliable sources) and if you can help me, maybe you can find it on you to help me being unblocked, I've never had any problems on Wikipedia before and those problems would never have happen if it was not by: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bbb23 deep dislike of me. Please look at the facts and help me. PS: You can also see that I've done everything that I could before asking your help: I appealed, I emailed and I don't know what else I could do that I haven't done. Thank you Sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idontfeelthesame (talk • contribs) 19:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what to make of it. Your editing on Frederic Bourdin may constitute a conflict of interest and is discouraged. Have you contacted the Arbitration Committee? Thegreatgrabber (talk)contribs 20:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for answering and I just did post the same message on Thegreatgrabber talk page.
But I believe that it can't be a conflict of interest because nobody know who is anyone here, I am just being honest by telling you who I am, I am also editing an article with, and again excuse me, reliable sources like anyone can do with any article. I mean what's the problem with that ?? I am putting a TRUE FACT in an article, what can possibly be the problem about this. I can show you at least 3 different reliable sources that confirm that. And because of that simple editing I'm finding myself blocked along with a simple but relevant fact again. I mean maybe I'm crazy and what appear so simple to my eyes isn't this way but to me it's unfair. That's why again, I'm asking you to take a very simple look at the facts and to help me. Try to put yourself in my place.
With all due respect and thanks again Sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idontfeelthesame (talk • contribs) 20:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) (I'm taking "talk page stalker" to a whole new level here.) Of note, since one could easily conceive of someone trying to pass themselves off as M. Bourdin as some form of irony: The first account (User:Francparler) was associated with an IP address per WP:DUCK; geolocation results appear to match the general region given in this profile in The Independent. (Since there have been previous outing concerns on this page, I'll note that neither the profile nor the results specify a precise address, nor even a town of residence; furthermore, this is not about this editor's location, but rather of the location of the person he [seemingly legitimately] purports to be.) Vous avez de la chance, M. Bourdin ! Les Pays de la Loire me manque. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 20:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a couple of points:

  • You may not have known that threatening to sue someone was forbidden, here, by Wikipedia's rules, but you ought to have known that it's forbidden, everywhere, by the rules of gentle social discourse. Wikipedia's rule is just a subset of that, really. Deployment of a threat to sue is, like deployment of a revolver, taken in most quarters as a reason for serious and implacable enmity. Once done, it's difficult to undo, and second chances cannot be assumed. If you didn't know this, now you do.
  • My experience is that individual persons are of indifferent reliability as sources for personal details of the type you describe. For instance, I have found a few people -- Gene Tierney, Stan Kenton -- who were mistaken about their own birth dates. The story you cite sounds like family lore. Well, a lot of family lore is mistaken. Elizabeth Warren's family lore was that she had a bit of Indian ancestry, but apparently she might not. This is common, and people in families often have axes to grind, narratives more attractive than the truth, simple misunderstandings and forgettings, and so forth. I'd be reluctant to put in any article about a living person the statement you describe absent very solid proof, such as citation of a letter in the grandfather's handwriting or similar. Herostratus (talk) 02:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I just would like you to read this: for me there is someone who is trying to help me and someone who is doing everything he can sp that I can never edit again. Calling my personnal history: "irrelevant and garbage", please read all this: User talk:Bbb23#Clearing things up with Frederic Bourdin

Don't you think that Bbb23 's act are irrespectful not to say shameful. Again I'm asking for your help. Also, concerning my Grandfather, this information come from his very "memoires" and it's confirmed by the French media, maybe I look like a total idiot to you but I actually edit things that I can prove. And I know my date of birth, Thank you.

Sincerely--Idontfeelthesame (talk) 09:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC) The original post contained a large chunk of (unformatted) text copied from User talk:Bbb23; for simplicity's sake, I've replaced it with a link. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 09:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: This is no easy topic. The article is about an imposter. It is conceivable that some or all of the accounts who have claimed to be Bourdin are imposters who think that "turnabout is fair play" and emulating him on Wikipedia is a brilliant prank. It is also conceivable that the fraud was perpetrated, not on families who think the boy is deaf or their long-lost son, but on the newspaper reporters who brought us the stories. Caution in sourcing is needed in general, as for any biography. I note that the abortion claim is sourced to [16], which does not obviously mention it.
I don't have the time, or the patience, to try to figure out the truth. But if someone here is Bourdin, I think the following would help:
  1. Log in to each of your accounts, and use talk page access to enter a statement taking credit for each of the other accounts, so that all the accounts are linked two ways.
  2. Log in to the account that made the legal threat, and formally retract that threat. Say explicitly that it was never your intention to deliver a cease and desist notice to anyone, nor to place them in reasonable apprehension of litigation.
  3. Bourdin must have some kind of official website or Twitter or publicist or something to contact all these media groups for interviews and statements. It would be persuasive to see a posting from his website referencing the Wikipedia account(s) so that we know he says he's you like you say you're him.
Wnt (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I won't do that. None of it. Instead, I will leave it at that since I'm dealing with a bunch of kids and that (just like you) I don't have the patience for it.
Your behavior tells a lot more about yourself that it does about me...

After all, I don't need Wikipedia to publish my life such as it is, my contributing here was on the true's interest and nothing else, you don't want that fine and as long as your article is not insulting, it's VERY fine. There has been movies and books about my life and when I want something to be known about me I make it known and trust me it's not hard, see Vice, the New Yorker, and so many other media's articles and TV programs. So no, I'm done playing your immature and UNFAIR little games with you all. Again I was editing out of respect for people who wanted to know about me. Now I'll do it on Facebook, Twitter and Skyrock and through OFFICIAL and trusty reporters, I never needed to ask permission over there nor play little immature games with a bunch of unfair little kids. So keep running Wikipedia with your "I have to say" complicate and unfair rules and good luck with it ! And you Mister Wales, how can you be such an important figure here ? One last thing, I'll never say that I regret something that I surely don't. Good luck and thank you to the people who actually have a heart and the brain that goes with it ! Frédéric Bourdin --Idontfeelthesame (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what Jimbo thinks, but I think that's how you should be publishing the details of your life. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought - it follows the pack; it doesn't lead it. If you get a couple of newspapers to print how sucky your experience here on Wikipedia was, we should cheerfully add that to the article. If you even so much as start an official Facebook blog and use that to say how wrong the article is, we can cite that, if we think it's authentic (though per WP:BLP we can't use a self-published source for anything negative about anybody else). Wnt (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unfortunate and I fear typical tale. It is a good example of why we advise people that it is unwise to directly edit their own biographies - it can end in an unfortunate and needless conflict. Here's the most important thing: the changes being suggested by Mr. Bourdin (or whoever he is, if we aren't sure) should be considered thoughtfully and without prejudice as to what the history of this conflict is. There is nothing more important than Wikipedia being correct. Beyond that, what I'd like to see is a path forward for Mr. Bourdin to "come in from the cold". Perhaps he could identify to the Foundation and promise to use only one account and not make legal threats and not edit his own biography directly, and then we can all regard this as an unfortunate misunderstanding and move past it with dignity. But even if that doesn't happen, we need to make sure that Wikipedia is correct.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wnt and Jimbo, just so you know, I started an AN/I thread about determining the best way to proceed with this fairly complicated situation. My original question was whether or not to pursue a sockpuppetry block (there is a pending SPI case), which seems to get at what you're saying, Jimbo. Wnt, after seeing your points, I've also brought up the matter of verifying his identity, and would appreciate any input. (Oh, and, in case anyone was worried, yes my username is similar to Bourdin's original, yes I am a teenager, yes he's impersonated teenagers, no I am not a sockpuppet, and yes if you dig through my contributions you'll find more than enough references to my real identity.) — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 09:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Mister Jimbo just that you know, I cannot write on any pages of the other accounts that I have used because I am totally blocked, so I can't even say "Hello It's Frederic Bourdin" on the talk page, you can thank Bbb23 since like I am being saying he is stopping any attempts for a resolution. Now if you go on my Facebook Page/account: https://www.facebook.com/frederic.bourdin.cameleon , you will see that I am not happy with Wikipedia at the moment and you will also understand that it's obvious that it's me, maybe not for the suspicious mind or paranoid editor on Wikipedia. I will put that one last time: I edited my page for Wikipedia's sake, I didn't write on my page that I was a God or that I deserved to be a king okay ! Then "out of the cold" an Admin called Bbb23 decided that I was a shit and should be treated like one. I got mad at him and threatened him with legal action since I did not know about all your rules and that I could have deal with him through one of the very few honest people here. He jumped on the very occasion to block me, and I evaded the block because to me all this was very unfair and I did not understand why this individual should have the right to stop me from putting, no matter what he say, a very relevant information about my personal history. And of course, I understand that now, by evading the block I was making myself deeper into HIS game. Now I have explained and asked for help and if you go to Bbb23 talk page you will see that he is doing everything he can to stop anyone making the problem disappear and do you know why, I'll tell you: Because if everything is cleared up, then he will not be able to stop me editing my page with the proof that support it. And that to him is unbearable, because what I have say about my grandfather is a fact, a relevant fact and I can prove it at any time, it's little to you all but it's important to me. I have nothing else to say. You can contact me on Facebook, on Twitter https://twitter.com/Francparler Thank you to those, again, who have a heart and the brain that goes with it !--Idontfeelthesame (talk) 11:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd stop worrying about Bbb23, really. I'm sure he'll be perfectly happy to just leave this whole matter to others to handle. There's no reason for your personal dislike of him to cause him or you any further problems.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Jimbo: what about this then ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Francparler --Idontfeelthesame (talk) 11:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sock puppet investigation is valid. I've asked Bbb23 to step back from this, and I'm sure he will. What you need to focus on is not editing from multiple accounts or ip addresses, not editing your own biography (trust me, this will be happier for you and everyone else) and pointing me (and others) to reliable sources for the information you want to include. Let's just drop the conflict, figure out what you need in order to be satisfied with the accuracy of the article, so you can walk away from Wikipedia with dignity. You may wish to email info-en@wikipedia.org with more information, if you are blocked, and they'll try to help you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this but I emailed a while ago to info-en@wikipedia.org and here is what they say: > Frédéric Bourdin

The first method of requesting an unblock is to contact the administrator who placed the block. You will see this person's username in the message that appears when you attempt to edit a page.

To e-mail the blocking admin, you may click on "E-mail this user" in the sidebar when viewing the user's user page. To do this, you must have a confirmed e-mail address. Visit "my preferences" along the top of your screen and follow the instructions to enter and confirm an e-mail address.

Blocked users may also, in most cases, still edit their talk page. To request unblocking, edit your talk page and add "{{unblock}}" along with the reason you should be unblocked.

If for some reason you cannot do this, you may use the Unblock Ticket Request System at http://toolserver.org/~unblock/p/ and an administrator will look into your request.

In all cases, please copy the message you see when you try to edit that shows the IP or username that was blocked and the name of the blocking administrator! Without it, your request cannot be acted upon.

I hope this is of help.

Yours sincerely, Ryan Foster

I appealed also, so maybe this will help: I will not threaten anyone here with legal action now that I know that there are other way to fix a problem. I never wanted to cause problems here and I totally agree to put this problem behind me if allowed to do JUST that. I just want to move on. Frédéric Bourdin--Idontfeelthesame (talk) 12:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's asking for an unblock and the answer they gave is valid. I was just saying that if your current account gets blocked, you can ask the email team to pass along your references and requested edits. For now, though, you should simply post a very clear and simple post, without a sense of outrage or justice, without attacking anyone, just sticking to the simple facts: what do you want included in the article, what are the reliable sources to back it up, and why do you think it is relevant to your biography? I'm sure many good people will look at it; I will look at it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the account (almost at the same time as he posted above, so I hadn't seen his retraction of the legal threat then). I will not unblock him though, since looking further into this makes it clear that what he has repeatedly inserted are severe BLP violations against non-notable persons (presumed to be living). This includes claiming that his grandfather is extremely racist[17] and wanted his daughter to have an abortion[18]. This isn't supported by the sources given[19][20], and wouldn't be acceptable anyway as being said by a primary source with, frankly, very little reliability (his life story makes him a rather unreliable source). WP:BLP (and "do no harm") trumps other considerations in this case. Fram (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well I was hoping to persuade him to just post his suggested edits now (not the ones he made before) to the talk page, and we see what we think of them, and then be done with it. Given that he seems to be amenable to working things out, and that blocks are generally supposed to be preventative rather than punitive, I wonder if you will reconsider. Of course you know my strong views on BLP - I'll fully support a re-block (and he'll be permanently ignored by me personally thereafter) if he does anything wrong from this point forward.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that these are the issues that brought him here, as evidenced in his first post above ("It is well known in France and in differents press article that the Father of my mother (my grandfather) was racist and because of the fact that my Father was Algerian, my grandfather wanted his daughter, my mother to have an abortion of me."), I am not going to unblock him, but would urge you to remove this whole thread from your talk page as it contains serious BLP violations (not made by you obviously). If he has other, non-BLP violating and better sourced remarks about his articles, then he can choose from his multiple talk pages to post them there, or contact Wikipedia through other means (mail), but so far I have not seen any indication that there are other issues he cares more about in the article. So I do consider a block now to be preventative, not punitive. Fram (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Election Commission RFC

Would it be possible to close this RFC soon? We already have a few issues that need the appointees' attention. Thanks! --Rschen7754 00:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy-melon has 17 votes, Lord Roem has 17 votes and one procedural objection as he is not an admin, MBisanz has 34 votes, Avraham has 13 votes.
So I choose Happy-melon, Lord Roem, Mbisanz, and ask Avraham if he will kindly support.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --Rschen7754 10:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberbullying and WIkipedia's role

Some time ago you expressed an interest in this topic when I raised it here and expressed thoughts towards our doing better in this regard. With that encouragement and the encouragement of others, including Maggie Dennis who spoke to the WMF legal team to ensure they are aware of the matter, I have moved the discussion forward to a current Village Pump discussion. I hope the topic is still on your radar. If so a brief note of encouragement to the other editors there might be appropriate. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This is good work you are doing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With a good following wind we may make a difference. While sites like Facebook are much easier to use for bullying I'm sure that kids use our pages to bully other kids. We are used to seeing this as vandalism, not bullying. I hope to help people understand that some vandalism is cyberbullying. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Naser al-Din Shah slide 1.jpg

Further information: User talk:Drmies § I can't stay away

Hi Jimbo, I've fallen down the rabbit hole of this discussion commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Naser al-Din Shah slide 1.jpg re: the expectations of the Commons image repository, and whether there are indeed criteria for acceptability, and, if so, who makes such decisions. At question is a poorly drawn image, which some deem as having an educational value. Feel free to pass on this if it's too trivial, but I'm curious as to the larger intent of the Commons, its criteria for inclusion, and whether anyone minds the store. Thanks and cheers, 99.0.80.70 (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Of course it's amateurish nonsense with very close to zero aesthetic, historical, educational, or literary value. It looks like the doodle of an oversexed teenage boy with no talent. That's not a personal attack; I know nothing of the author of the work, who I am sure is a fine, upstanding citizen. It's an aesthetic judgment of a really stupid drawing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. That this has entailed a lengthy discussion amazes me. 99.0.80.70 (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Before you go off telling your friends "what's amiss with Wikipedia", try to remember that Wikimedia Commons isn't Wikipedia, and that Tomwsulcer no more represents Wikimedia Commons than you do. No one single person represents Wikimedia Commons. Uncle G (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The overall image is now being discussed at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Naser al-Din Shah slide.jpg. Uncle G (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Points taken, Uncle G. This was the first, and perhaps last time I'll have waded into a discussion at Commons. But such discussions--where the parsing of policy and a sort of myopia trumps a rather obvious decision-- crop up on Wikipedia as well, and don't particularly help the projects, unless they lead to a honing of policy. My guess is that Jimbo is well aware of such issues, and is, perhaps, frustrated by them from time to time as well. This is, of course, common to discourse outside Wikipedia, too. But I make no apologies for sharing such discussions with friends; what we do here is transparent, even if we choose opacity re: our personal identities. 99.0.80.70 (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=524544208"