User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Transphobia on Wikipedia

Hello,

I realise that this may be construed as a violation of my current (and hopefully to be rescinded) topic ban, but as a trans editor, I cannot simply sit and watch as Talk:Chelsea Manning is used as a platform for transphobic statements. On my twitter, I've collected several quotes from Wikipedia editors, including one administrator. This sort of behaviour, and the current systemic bias against trans people, has to stop. Selected quotes include:

• "By all means he can have surgery, wear women's clothes or have himself transformed into a dolphin, but leave wikipedia out of it."
• "Manning is a convicted criminal, and I couldn't care less about him/her/it."
• "If he (not she) said he wanted to be black now, would you describe him as African-American??"
• "And he could say he wants to be called Minnie Mouse, for all we care, but that don't make it so."
• "I don't think this project should be running around willy-nilly just because someone woke up this morning and said "today I am a girl!"."
• "I could declare myself as the King of England, but it doesn't mean Wikipedia will suddenly refer to me as His Majesty."
• "It is not an "opinion" that men have XY sex chromosomes and women have XX sex chromosomes — it is a biological fact."
• "Wikipedia is about FACTS not gay-lobby propaganda."
• "Why not use "it" until gender has been legally established?"
• "What would you do if s/he self-identified as a dog, cat, broomstick, or banana then? Self-identification is not the same as legal identity"
• "If I wake up in the morning and decide I am a woman, it doesn't make it so. This absolutely reeks of political correctness."
• "This dude is named Bradley Manning until officially recognized by the courts. Chelsea is what we would call a nickname."

This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to anti-transgender editing on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology allowed a tendentious fringe theorist who subscribes to the theory that lesbian trans women are men who are attracted to the thought of themselves as woman to continue editing. This is an encyclopedia which has had similar problems before, on Chaz Bono and Laura Jane Grace. We desperately need to do something about it, as the net result will drive prospective trans editors off. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I can't defend every quote, but bear in mind that I was astonished to see people saying that our policy is to change the entire article, beginning to end, to reference "she" in every regard, even using "sister" in descriptions of early childhood. If we are to be enlightened and not transphobic, we should respect there may be people who choose to change genders a couple of times every month. But would that respect extend to rewriting their Wikipedia articles, beginning to end, each time? There is a principle here, opposed to "WP:Recentism", that a fact that is true, or a historical perspective that is accurate, should continue to be so in the future. Wnt (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see an example or three before thinking this apparent hypothetical was in fact likely to be a serious problem - David Gerard (talk) 07:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Right at the beginning of Wendy Carlos there is a passage which uses "she" in reference to that person's early childhood. Mangoe (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I think David was talking about examples of "people who choose to change genders a couple of times every month". Diego Moya (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Almost every comment of user User:Baseball Bugs on Talk:Chelsea Manning is blatant example of intentional and disruptive trolling.--В и к и T 07:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It really has been. Practically every comment he's made there (and in several other places where there are discussions going on) has been incredibly offensive. Silverseren^C 08:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Some of these comments are quite funny when presented in an appropriate way (which he often doesn't). With a bit more work User:Baseball Bugs could become our resident Comedian. Count Iblis (talk) 12:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The project is not a practice field for comedian want a bees. We don't want or need a freaking resident comedian. Wasn't Bugs banned from ANI for his constant jokes and commentary? He has been doing this crap for years. If you want a good laugh, go to a comedy club, this isn't that. --Malerooster (talk) 13:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You are right, but we could use a bit more fun. The problem is fundamentally caused by BB presenting his comments in a way that makes people to take them seriously when they shouldn't (i.e. even if Wikipedia had different rules that would allow people making jokes at AN/I, BB's behavior would still be a problem). Count Iblis (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

If you want more fun, you could say Julian Assange has a reputation for meeting "new young girls" (just kidding), but BB's many jokes at wp:ANI were more like wp:DE disruptive editing of a talk-page, as too much distraction. -Wikid77 23:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• The thing is, Wikipedia:Article titles trumps a style guide or a particular wikiproject's desires. We can certainly make mention in the article that "Bradley Manning" wishes to be a girl and wants to be addressed as "Chelsea", as it is quite the notable topic. But being notable for wanting to be a girl doesn't actually make it so, and it sure as hell should not have led to a knee-jerk page move and a find-and-replace of "he" to "she" throughout the article. That's not reality; that's activism. Tarc (talk) 12:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I support the move and change, but having said that it's worth acknowledging that "transphobia" (which clearly present in some comments, sadly) isn't the only possible grounds for opposing the change, or opposing some particular details of the change. By the nature of our language, it's tricky to figure out how to correctly refer to someone who identifies as female now, but who identified as male at the time of notable activity. That's just a hard editorial problem, and no cause for high levels of emotion.

As a supporter of the move, I'll also note that it is interesting, and not in a good way, that this move was accomplished almost immediately while other 'name' issues are resolved incorrectly for great lengths of time. We ought to very strongly defer to how people identify themselves, but for various pedantic reasons, some editors insist on calling people by names that they very strongly reject. I consider that a BLP issue of some seriousness.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate, Jimmy, that you recognize that disagreeing with someone is not enough to slap labels on them such as "transphobic." I have my reservations with the change, especially its speed, but if Manning keeps the identity long enough, it will probably lose its controversial nature. However, the discussion was/is valid because of conflicting policies.Thelmadatter (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Has the name change been done legally? I can't see how we can change the name if it isn't done in an official capacity off Wikipedia.--MONGO 14:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No it hasn't, but that's irrelevant - Wikipedia uses the WP:COMMONNAME, not the legal name. See, for example, Cat Stevens or Peter Sutcliffe. GiantSnowman 14:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There's clearly a discrepancy between WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:IDENTITY in this case, which should probably be looked at when all this has died down. I suppose you could meet both by having the article at Bradley Manning, including that they self-identify as Chelsea Manning, and using female pronouns. Black Kite (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

@Black Kite - re "WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:IDENTITY" - Just as a point of order, I think MOS:IDENT says we should use the pronoun "she" if that's what the subject wants. I don't think MOS:IDENT says we have to change the article title. NickCT (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that editor Sceptic was blocked (apparently for 12 hours) for making the post that opened this thread, and that there is discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_for_lift_of_topic_ban. I had the impression that posts like this, here, are sort of protected speech (and said so, there). Not meaning to change the topic of this discussion / comments about the topic ban should be made at the wp:AN thread. --doncram 14:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, as the person who made the move request back to Bradley Manning so a proper discussion and consensus could ensue, I am frustrated you assume requests such as mine were made for "various pedantic reasons." Policy is absolutely essential; it is not "pedantic." The controversial move to Chelsea, with which many people disagreed for various reasons (some transphobic but many policy-based; personally I support the ultimate move to Chelsea so as to respect her wishes) was a clear violation of the need to seek consensus before making a controversial move. If you think a call to follow policy on controversial moves is "pedantic" that would make most of our other policies "pedantic" as well. We do not have the luxury of picking and choosing when to apply our policies and to what extent. Controversial move request need to be discussed, period. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, Jimbo's statement supporting the move seems to be supporting the return of the article to "Bradley", from "Chelsea", where it had been moved. Maybe everyone understood this. --doncram 14:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Only for values of "seems" that are very similar to "can be misread as". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay i guess i was completely wrong. There is a current RM ongoing, but I gather now that Jimbo's statement about "I support the move and change" was about the previous move from Bradley to Chelsea. Sorry for my confusion. --doncram 16:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No worries! I highly commend you for being one of the few (the only?) persons in this mess who changes his or her opinion based on facts ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Your confusion is understandable because of the obtuse way a few admins handled the situation. The irony is that we should have had this kind of deliberate and thorough discussion the first time -- before a few admins took it in their hands to make the move despite overwhelming evidence that it would be controversial. I wish we didn't have to parse this situation after the fact. CaseyPenk (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Only focussing on official name changes is problematic. It would mean that while we have to move Shaparova to Sugarpova during the US open if the Florida Supreme Court gives the green light for that, we can't call Manning the way she wants herself to be called. Count Iblis (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to throw in my two cents here, this issue has got too hopeless wrapped up in the "trans" debate for anyone to think rationally about it. My feeling is that we should try our best to treat trans BLPs exactly the same as we treat every darn other BLP. We should be careful not to give less deference to Manning than we normally would, but we should also be careful not to give him any more deference than usual. WP:COMMONNAME strikes me as the obvious policy to follow here. The core principle surrounding WP:V is that my opinion about what Manning should be called does not matter. Neither does Jimbo's or anyone else's. All that matters is what the sources are calling Manning. WP should try to reflect the majority of verifiable reliable sources (period). If that ends up "offending" anybody, tough cookies. That's life. NickCT (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

NickCT, while I'm very much sympathetic with the notion that what I/we (personally, as a matter of personal ethics) think someone should be called isn't a primary determinant, I think the issue is more complex than the simplistic mantras that often surround WP:V. One of the many reasons that I, and others, campaigned against the simple formulation of "verifiability, not truth" is that very often real editorial judgment calls have to be made by us, when the sources are unclear or in flux. While of course it is important to take into consideration that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball it seems very likely that for the next few weeks there will be confusion and conflict in reliable sources. My guess is that some more socially conservative reliable sources may well refuse to ever recognize the name change, and some more socially liberal ones will recognize it and carry it into force completely with immediate effect. Our article should in some useful fashion convey to the reader the full context of that state of affairs, but ultimately by the design of the software, the article has to ultimately be at one particular name, with the other made into a redirect. When do we make the change? That's a judgment call where WP:V is going to offer very very little guidance.

Here's my ultimate philosophical point - we deliberately constrain ourselves to some extent with policies like WP:V. But we can also WP:IAR when in our thoughtful editorial judgment it is wise to do so. Since WP:V is going to give little guidance for the next couple of weeks, we can and should and must make a judgment (which may well end up mistaken) about how things will shake out. I think in six months time the vast majority of RS will call him Chelsea, which is why I support the change.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, Sir. Very much appreciate the response. The care, consideration and personal attention you pay to these matters is a light and inspiration to us all.

re "I think in six months time the vast majority of RS will call him Chelsea" - I think you might very well be correct. So why not change the name to Chelsea in six months time? Changing it now just makes it look like WP is soapboxing.

You must forgive me sir, but I think at the end of the day, I am a "verifiability, not truth"er. Despite that, I am, and will remain, your most humble and obedient servant, NickCT (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"One of the many reasons that I, and others, campaigned against the simple formulation of "verifiability, not truth" is that very often real editorial judgment calls have to be made by us, when the sources are unclear or in flux." I hadn't thought of it in these terms, but very much like we have an "ignore the rules if it improves the article" guideline, we changed WP:V for the very reason that it had been suggesting that truth is not important. Some things can only be verified through the subject themselves and we cannot be so wrapped up in our own policies, guidelines and procedures that we forget the fact that not all information that is accurate will be found documented in reliable sources, especially BLP information. The old way of thinking had always been: "If it isn't in a reliable source it cannot be mentioned". That is simply no longer the case and I'm not even sure if it was really ever the case. Some information should ignore the documentation, especially if the documentation is wrong. And we know documentation is wrong very often or just missing/destroyed. If we have an outright statement from the subject that we know is them, yes, we should add the information. Also, Baseball Bugs should reign in the humor if it is getting offensive to other editors. No offense to BB, but he shouldn't let all these discussion of this topic make them become insensitive to others. I know BB does not do anything intentionally. At least in discussions of this topic in the past, they have never demonstrated a clear lack of civility of the issue.--Mark 18:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

As a supporter of the move, I'll also note that it is interesting, and not in a good way, that this move was accomplished almost immediately while other 'name' issues are resolved incorrectly for great lengths of time. This is, unfortunately, a systemic problem and has little to do with transsexuals in particular. Often the easiest way to win an argument is to have a couple of dedicated editors ready to make the change and to prevent anyone from rolling it back. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Probably the underlying problem is that WP intends to be an encyclopaedia (timeless), but it is written at the pace of a newspaper (on the hour). Yes, in six months, or a year, or a couple weeks, it will be clear whether it should be "him", "her", or a given mix of both; in the mean time it is likely that mast amounts of energy will be spent (wasted?) discussing it... I have no idea for a reasonable and widely acceptable solution, though, and maybe many don't even agree there is a problem there. - Nabla (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Google News often links to Wikipedia articles, so we have been promoted to a real news site. Count Iblis (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Another news site linking to us does not make us a news site. I can't wait for someone like Colbert to take advantage of this fiasco. What a joke. --Onorem (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Iblis, your suggestion that they link here out of a sense of journalistic recognition is either subtle sarcasm or charmingly naive. Google News links to the Wikipedia due to a much-documented close business relationship. Tarc (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Tarc, I wonder if you might clarify your remark here. You seem to be suggesting, although I may well be misunderstanding you, that Google News links to Wikipedia due to a business relationship between Google and Wikipedia - although there is absolutely no business relationship between Google and Wikipedia that led to their decision to link to us from Google News. You give a link, as if to substantiate the claim, but the link appears to perhaps be an accidental cut/paste error, as it has nothing to do with the matter at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• The idea that being accused of bigotry is worse than the bigotry itself isn't a new thing. Certainly, British editors will remember the Julie Bindel saga back in January, where she made horrifically transphobic comments in The Observer in response to her friend Suzanne Moore being criticised for LGBT activists for prejudiced language in one of her columns. It all comes down to the idea of privilege, really; as the majority of editors are white, male, straight, cisgender, etc, they have a privilege to look at things in this sort of dispassionate, by-the-book discussion that other people on this Earth don't have; indeed, that's why CSB exists in the first place. It's easier to leave your points of view at the door when the opposite point of view isn't "morally mandate them out of existence".

  Indeed, the simultaneous proposed topic bans of Baseball Bugs and Josh Gorand are very worrying. On one hand, Baseball Bugs made statements that were almost certainly intended to provoke anger and, yes, were transphobic (there's no other way to see calling a trans person "it"). He seems to be about to let off the hook for this behaviour. On the other hand, Josh has been pointing out transphobic commentary on the talk page (the mandatory worship of COMMONNAME aside, there is a lot of resistance to the idea of gendering Manning correctly in article text too) and is facing a topic ban for it. We're even seeing Morwen (talk · contribs) receiving threats of blackmail from (since-banned) editors, and David Gerard (talk · contribs) is probably getting similar harassment. The end result is that it is creating a very hostile and unwelcoming environment for trans editors, and is definitely against the Foundation's aims. Sceptre ^(talk) 08:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Julie Bindel's comments have a rationale to them, and I don't think Wikipedians should be expected to all be to the left of a lesbian rights activist on the issue. Doctors may agree that trans surgeries are a necessary and useful intervention, but medical ethics is strictly synonymous with profit. Why can't the same emotional end be accomplished through simple societal recognition of a third sex? Why are trans surgeries highest in Iran, and what would the doctors say about their necessity? There is definitely a need for society to retain its skeptics of the need for cosmetic surgeries. If there is a sense of privilege here, there are a lot of people who feel that it also extends to prisoners who sue for extensive surgeries; of course, if the U.S. had universal health coverage much of that resentment would be removed, and if wishes were horses... Wnt (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI: it was actually Julie Burchill, not Julie Bindel, who wrote the controversial Observer article User:Sceptre refers to. An understandable mistake (both are British feminist writers, with the same first name, who have both at times been accused of transphobia), but let's try to avoid violating BLP on Jimbo's talk page. Robofish (talk) 01:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• OP was blocked again, for 60 hours: Unfortunately, the OP of this thread, User:Sceptre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been blocked again for "topic ban violation" (this time by User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise: dif526) and not able to reply directly here for 60 hours (~3 days) from "09:17, 24 August 2013‎". However, comments can be read at bottom of User_talk:Sceptre. Dozens of users are discussing the issues at "wp:AN#Request for lift of topic ban" and Talk:Chelsea_Manning. -Wikid77 14:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, I don't think your judgement on this article-title issue is reliable and I'll explain why.

You wrote, "We ought to very strongly defer to how people identify themselves, but for various pedantic reasons, some editors insist on calling people by names that they very strongly reject. — With the use of the term "pedantic" you have unfairly stereotyped those who disagree with you.

You wrote, "I think in six months time the vast majority of RS will call him Chelsea, which is why I support the change. — You are basing your judgement on speculation instead of facts.

But hey, this just demonstrates that when it comes to discussions like this, you are just another Wikipedia editor with regard to personal strengths and weaknesses. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course I am. But I do think you're missing my key point. Either choice is completely speculative at this point in time. There is no way, today, to settle the issue definitively by simply pointing to "what reliable sources say" - they say different things, and are likely to continue to do so for some time. If someone said "I think in six months time the vast majority of RS will call her Bradley" that'd be equally as speculative. (And, I think, false, given a look at the history of such things.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Re "Either choice is completely speculative at this point in time." — There is no speculation that the vast majority of sources have used the name Bradley Manning. There is only speculation that the vast majority of sources will be using Chelsea Manning six months from now. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The vast majority of sources throughout all of history say that Pluto is a planet. The moment a celebrity dies, the vast majority of sources will say that the person is alive. The day a famous person (usually, a woman) changes her name due to marriage, the vast majority of sources will give her previous name. The point is that when something new happens, we update Wikipedia. We often have to make judgment calls about that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Admittedly, that's a really persuasive point about the married name -- but (even if there is a ring of higher truth to it) we don't write that the celebrity's parents gave birth to a corpse. Wnt (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm just curious, because the pronoun shift is different from a name change in some important ways, so I don't think this proves anyone definitively one way or the other. How do we usually refer to women during the time in their life when they went by their maiden name? Here's one example: Margaret Thatcher in which we refer to her as 'Roberts' several times. Does this provide us with any guidance as to whether we ought to refer to Manning as 'he' when talking about a period in his life when he identified as male, and 'she' when talking about the present day? (Addendum: as a counter-example, I note we refer to Cheryl Cole as 'Cole' when she was 4 years old - even though Cole was not a name she or her parents would have recognized at that time.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

That is an excellent point, because I think the Manning article, now with "she", needs to specify Manning was in the U.S. Army as a man, lest people imagine military service as a woman. This issue is akin to not omitting facts which would lead people to "original conclusions" (as in non-true conclusion of woman in army). -Wikid77 16:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

We change sentences about the person from the present tense to the past, though. Diego Moya (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, Re "The point is that when something new happens, we update Wikipedia." — When Manning expressed the desire to be called Chelsea, this new info was included in the article, presumably without dispute. But regarding the title, the new thing to happen would need to be a change to a prevalent use of Chelsea instead of Bradley in the sources that have come out since the announcement, which I don't think has happened so far. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it has. But in any event, time will tell.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The UK press shifted entirely over in mere hours after the announcement, the US press has been shifting at an increasing rate over the past few days - David Gerard (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, Re "I think it has. " — To find out, you can google Bradley Manning, and then google Chelsea Manning, and see for yourself. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Making google searches does not prove anything and using these search results is a bad way of building an encyclopedia. There is overhwelming evidence that many reliable sources are using Chelsea so it is already a common usage term, we dont need google to tell us this. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The googling was just to find current articles to read to see how they use the two names. I suggested separate searches using each name to avoid any keyword-related bias in the result. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Subject to some natural caveats, I don't agree with Squeakbox. A naive and blind use of Google search counts is a bad idea, of course. But it can be a useful first tool for understanding the preponderance of the evidence. And a quick look at the relevant Google search (i.e. Google news) shows that I'm absolutely right. The vast majority of sources are using "Chelsea" in the headlines. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I did a google news search here in Australia, just searching for "Manning". Of the top ten results, two articles had "Bradley" in the headline ([1][2]) and two had "Chelsea" ([3][4]). StAnselm (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

One teeny problem -- the "name qua name" is the topic of many articles - and that is not proof that the newspaper style guide now says to use that name -- vide the NYT [5] which carefully uses "Bradley" and "he" in its most recent article. "Google counts" which include articles primarily about the name are not sufficient to make much of a case for anything. As Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and there is no deadline, I suggest that the NYT be considered as a reputable MOS guide here. Collect (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I went to the google news site after reading Jimbo's message but I didn't see how to search just google news and not google in general, and I didn't know what keywords Jimbo used. In any case, Jimbo's criteria of "using 'Chelsea' in the headlines" is not useful because it includes cases where both Bradley and Chelsea are in the same headline and does not exclude cases where Manning is referred to as Bradley in the text of the article. The correct criterion for this discussion is how Manning is referred to in the text of the article, Chelsea or Bradley.

I also went to repeat the search that StAnselm did, but in the process I found an interesting article from The Christian Science Monitor (CSM) about how the media was affected. Here's an excerpt about Wikipedia from that CSM article.[6]

For now, at least, and until instructed otherwise by my editors, I’ll do what that source of all undergraduate wisdom – Wikipedia – has done: Refer to Manning as female.

Ms. Manning had barely finished his – oops, her – announcement last week when Wikipedia immediately redirected “Bradley Manning” searches to “Chelsea Manning” in an article peppered with feminine pronouns. One example:

“She was sentenced to 35 years in prison and dishonorably discharged. She will be eligible for parole after serving one third of her sentence, and together with credits for time served and good behavior could be released eight years after sentencing.”

It’s not been so quick or easy for others in the media, where what to call Manning is being hotly debated.

From what I've seen at the Wikipedia article, the issue is being hotly debated in Wikipedia too but the change in the title did not come from a consensus from the debate, but instead was the result of aggressive editing and maneuvering. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Gotta say, I'm not a particularly big fan of the sarcasm used in that article. Nor the way the post above seems to have some things a bit...tilted. Was the media really "effected" or was a single reporter from one source just agreeing with us...one that just happens to be one of, if not the top story coming up in Google news.

When you make a Google search there is an option below to choose "news". Just click it after you hit search. Bradley Manning Google News [7]. Chelsea manning google news [8].

Also, no this was not just something that popped up last week. This is an issue that has been simmering now for a month or two, at least. The decision was not a consensus edit. It was a bold edit. We still form consensus on Wikipedia through actual editing as well as discussion. It isn't a sin. I do resent the implication that editors who support this change have done so with "aggressive editing and maneuvering". No, they didn't. It got changed because it was finally confirmed to be accurate and real. Now that the bold edit has been made the community must decide if that is the right editorial judgment. I think it is. Strongly.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Re "The decision was not a consensus edit. It was a bold edit." — It was a series of edits that restored the move to Chelsea Manning after it was reverted twice.[9][10][11][12][13] The series of edits occurred over just 2 hours. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that the first revert was an error according to the reverting editor. So it wasn't the situation that I had thought. Sorry about that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

However, the second revert back to Bradley Manning was not an error according to that reverting administrator. Since Bradley Manning had been the stable article title, I don't think it should have been reverted back to Chelsea Manning without consensus. I think that the following two talk page messages succinctly convey each administrator's view at the time.[14]

Regarding revert to Chelsea Manning, which was final revert:

"Reverted move per WP:BLP. Note that BLP considerations override pretty much everything except the fundamental content policies and are absolutely what admin powers are for - David Gerard (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)"

Regarding revert to Bradley Manning, which was just before the final revert to Chelsea Manning:

"How on Earth is it a BLP violation to refer to someone by their legal name in an article title? -- tariqabjotu 14:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)"

--Bob K31416 (talk) 10:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The talk page for the MOS has this very problematic comment by the administrator Toddst1 (talk · contribs):

*Oppose: If I decided to declare my gender as vegetable it wouldn't make it true nor would reporting such here be encyclopedic. Toddst1 (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this conduct, which arguably breaks the Foundation's NDP, what we should expect or even tolerate from a sysop? Sceptre ^(talk) 12:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

For reference, I think that this is the Foundation's NDP that Sceptre is referring to.[15]

"The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected characteristics. The Wikimedia Foundation commits to the principle of equal opportunity, especially in all aspects of employee relations, including employment, salary administration, employee development, promotion, and transfer."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 12:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Sceptre, Re your comment "which arguably breaks the Foundation's NDP" — Would you care to explain? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Gender identity is explicitly legally protected in California, and implicitly protected federally as gender-based discrimination (Macy v. Holder). Todd's comments are clearly discriminatory speech against transgender persons, of which current and prospective users are a subset. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Sceptre, In your response, I didn't see anything about how the Foundation's NDP quoted above applies to Todd's comment.

Jimbo, If you're following any of this, feel free to jump in if you would like to add anything regarding the Foundation's NDP and whether it applies to Todd's comment. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Sceptre, It looks like Macy v. Holder has to do with discrimination in hiring.[16] So it doesn't apply to Todd's remark. Since you weren't specific about what California laws you were referring to, it's difficult for me to address that remark. I think that laws which limit freedom of speech are very narrow, and I expect they don't apply to Todd's remark. Perhaps a calm dialogue with your fellow Wikipedia editor on his Talk page might help you understand each other better. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Sceptre, Regarding understanding each other, I think that what you object to in Todd's remark is that it sounds to you like a joke about something that is too serious to joke about. Is that about it? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a clearly discriminatory remark, and I don't see how anyone can interpret it otherwise. When statements such as these are made by administrators, they bring disrepute to the project, and a Foundation that prides itself on equal opportunity. What do you think would happen in a different California company if a supervisor said what Toddst1 said to a trans employee they supervise? Sceptre ^(talk) 08:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Not everyone has the same ...if not morality, perhaps the term scruples could be used, in determining a slight against another, but most clear thinking people understand mockery. We see it often enough here to recognize it. When you fight for equality, sometimes you have to be a part of a community whether they like it or not but you don't have to be in battle mode on Wikipedia. We all have different backgrounds, experiences and a unique understanding of the world. You can further a cause by helping build encyclopedic value or you can try to set it back by comparing it to an unthinking food item. I think that some people will never see the seriousness of the subject and if they don't want to be serious they probably wont be counted. Did Toddst1 say this as part of his administrative duties or actions, or was this something said while just contributing as an editor? I don't think its going unnoticed. But we still have to accept each other and some of the things we will have to accept is that not everyone will understand us, not every one will agree with us and not everyone will take us seriously. LGBT issues are not even easy for those within the community and part of the history is that the "t" in LGBT was added. It used to be LGB. I think the 'b" was even added. Everything takes time, but here we are. Talking about the name change of an LGBT person. And when I remember how it was when even mentioning gay rights was shocking and gay marriage.....almost a laughable a dream. Things take time, but they do change.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Administrators are, theoretically, held to a higher standard than regular editors as their possession of administrative tools (rightly or wrongly) confers authority upon them. See also User:Bedford, whose sexist comments regarding main page comments were seen as enough to revoke his administrator tools (although, I understand, that was five years ago). Sceptre ^(talk) 08:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Comparisons to famous name changes

The most-obvious example I remembered was the name change of world-famous boxer Cassius Clay, as a rising star in the sports world, and then Clay defeated Sonny Liston in a major upset, so the "whole world" then knew the name "Cassius Clay" was the greatest boxer of the time, at a time when boxing was not widely considered such a "politically questionable" violent sport. Then Clay joined the Nation of Islam, and changed his name to "Muhammad Ali" and to my shock, within weeks, the "whole world" started continually referring to Clay as "Ali", I mean it was like the world just did not understand he was the great "Cassius Clay" and everyone kept saying "Ali" (or for a short while some added "formerly Clay"). Hence, it is important to understand the way the world has really worked during the past 50 years, and remember how a famous person who changes names for a crucial reason is almost instantly renamed in reporting future famous events. Perhaps the key issues are the public announcement of the name change, plus the impact of the underlying reasons. And the world media immediately responds. It is amazing how quickly people around the world can react, learn and adapt. Update: Even though polite TV might have accepted "Ali" there is a report that other reporters and TV commentators "openly mocked his new name, treating it as a bizarre affectation" which perhaps was not broadcast as much (see: Salon.com, "What's in a name? Chelsea Manning and Muhammad Ali", Aug. 24, 2013), and Clay had secretly become a member of the Nation of Islam before the Liston fight, but promoters suppressed the story, and Clay did not announce name "Ali" until after he won the fight. Hence, the behind-the-scenes bickering might have been similar, with the Times deciding to use historic name "Cassius Clay" as tied to pre-Ali notability. There were related issues of racism or fear about Black Muslim activities. -Wikid77 16:59, 25 August, 10:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

So why does Wikipedia still have an article on Cat Stevens, who hasn't used that name for 35 years? Mogism (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems Yusuf still mentions his former name "Cat Stevens" (see website YusufIslam.com), and perhaps his views of Allah encourage use of both names. See: Talk:Cat_Stevens to discuss use of both names in recent sources. -Wikid77 00:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

You're both right, and you're both wrong. WP:COMMONNAME already has it covered. Muhammad Ali is the most common name for Cassius Clay and Cat Stevens is the most common name for Yusuf. There is no need to argue or change policy. WP:COMMONNAME is already correct. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Ferdinand Lewis Alcindor comes to mind as well. Albacore (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Not a direct comparison, though. The majority of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's notable achievements were under that name, the majority of Margaret Thatcher's achievements were as Margaret Thatcher, not Margaret Roberts or Baroness Grantham, and Talk:Cat Stevens is full of explanations that the page hasn't been moved as most of his notable activity was under that name. Everything for which Manning is notable was done under the name Bradley. While I personally agree that Wikipedia should respect the subject's wishes and use whatever name they want to be known by, we should at least admit that Cat Stevens, Alan Sugar and hundreds of other pages are at "subject's former name" on the grounds that that is the name by which their most notable activity took place, even though that's not the name the subject currently goes by. Mogism (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Not so, Manning is unquestionably notable for her statement that she is now a female called Chelsea, indeed that is arguably the most notable thing this notable human being has done. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? You think the primary reason for her being notable is her gender identity? I don't just find that ridiculous, I find it insulting that you appear to be saying that people with gender identity issues are so unusual that they're automatically of public interest. (I really can't see any other way to parse your comment.) Mogism (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I didnt say it was the primary reason for her being notable, that was clearly the wikileaks episode, I said it was the most notable (just as Gary Glitter was primarily notable as a pop star but the most notable things he has done are his pedophile activities). Are you claiming Chelsea's recent statement isnt notable? In which case why are you here discussing it at all?. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

No, nobody would care that Manning considers themselves female if it wasn't for the security breach. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The term "transphobic" should not be used in these discussions, in my opinion. A phobia is a mental illness, an irrational fear. It is uncivil name-calling and an attempt to shut down discussion by applying a label to those who do not agree with you. I don't see all of those comments at the start of this thread as being evidence of a phobia, some of them are just discussing the question from a different point of view than the OP.Smeat75 (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

See etymological fallacy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

As our article puts it, "usually these kinds of "phobias" are described as fear, dislike, disapproval, prejudice, hatred, discrimination, or hostility towards the object of the 'phobia'." It's not a nice thing to say, regardless of whether the etymology is accurate. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 04:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I formerly thought the word was a "-phobia" mental condition, but it has been defined as a "strong dislike" or use of discrimination, as a statement of fact rather than a direct personal insult, or an attempt to ascribe a medical diagnosis to another user. Comparisons to mental phobias are a source of conflicts, as someone imagines being called crazy, rather than stating a dislike of transgender. -Wikid77 10:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

.......or a polemic structure used in an effort to capture the moral high ground and to shift the focus of debate in a politically advantageous manner. It's a way to demean those with whom one disagrees. Carrite (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It's usually apparent from context whether it's meant as a dispassionate description or as an accusation intended to attack another editor. There's no reason to block editors for years, even just an hour block would send the clear message "this is not acceptable behavior." As was stated on the AN/I thread, the warnings were openly ignored. The users violating WP:CIVIL were proud that they'd been arrogant and combative and believed it was appropriate behavior. The message that was sent was that incivility is welcome and accepted on Wikipedia, and that isn't what we were supposed to be doing. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, attempts to censor people in mid-debate, such as discussing transgender issues, are likely to escalate similar comments, rather than defusing them. Perhaps it would be good for Wikipedia to have some terminology forums, to shift the hostile debate into other pages, to allow the original issue to be decided without meta-debating the proper use of dictionary words "transphobia" or "transphobic". -Wikid77 00:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

People can discuss why it's offensive without labeling other editors as bigoted (which is the most likely understanding of the word). The seven dirty words are all in the dictionary, and that does not make them acceptable for use on TV. Transphobic is widely interpreted as an accusation of bigotry, and that's a personal attack, an argument ad hominem, and has no place in a civil debate, especially one where the personal opinions of the editors are supposed to be marginally relevant at best. The hostile debate should not be shifted into other pages, it should be shifted off Wikipedia - this is not a forum and not a battleground. If it's not about the article, it should be removed with extreme prejudice and the editor should shortly follow if they have no intention of talking about articles. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

NYT/AP switch to Chelsea

Now 4 days later, "New York Times to Call Chelsea Manning by Her Preferred Name" at Huffingtonpost.com, 26 August 2013. There have been reports that the New York Times (NYT) refused to use the name "Muhammad Ali" when world-famous boxer Cassius Clay changed his name after 1964. Also, Associated Press (AP) has announced intent to use "Chelsea" and will immediately affect hundreds/thousands of sources, as news feed to influence each newspaper or broadcaster (within days, the vast majority of recent sources will have: Chelsea). Keeping the WP title as "Chelsea Manning" allows that to appear in "Category:Transgender and transsexual women" as a female name. The first 7 other-language wikipedias which also renamed, for title with Chelsea, are: Swedish Wikipedia, Persian Wikipedia, Turkish WP, Dutch WP, Danish WP, Catalan WP and Finnish Wikipedia, all renamed on 22/23 August 2013. -Wikid77 06:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Child protection policy

I am a strong supporter of our child protection policy, which is strictly enforced. The blog post I'm asked about is utterly dishonest it its portrayal of the facts. There is no truth at all to the claim that someone was silenced for being a whistleblower. Rather, a user was blocked after a long string of outrageous insulting and otherwise bad behavior having nothing at all to do with child protection. His long block log tells the story better than I can. He should have been permanently banned a very long time ago for disruption. To suddenly cast him as a hero in the service of children is beyond mistaken.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi Jimbo, Have you read this blog yet? What is your opinion about the problems described there? Thanks. 50.174.76.70 (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Jimbo, on the case page you can see what prompted the case and the result. The "whistle-blowing" referred to in the blog post (one should use that term lightly here) concerns an unrelated editor and is not what prompted the case, nor was it the primary driver of the decision.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Of course the whistle-blowing was the primary driver of the decision. Just a few days before the decision was made Kiefer.Wolfowitz was blocked for 48 hours over this comment. Of course Kiefer.Wolfowitz is blocked for the whistle-blowing. 50.174.76.70 (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Actually it was the block for this comment (admins only) that immediately preceded the case. Then again, there's so much to choose from in KW's block log (including two more blocks for unrelated matters during the case!) that your line of argument would support his ban being for just about anything. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC) That comment is more nasty innuendo than whistle-blowing and there is a great deal of dishonesty in Kiefer's framing of those situations. Also, while such an incident may have influenced the decision (there was talk of a site-ban well before that incident) it was just one of many things he did over the duration of the case. Several comments about the actual opposing party in that case, where there were no real issues of child protection, likely played just as much of a role in how Arbitrators acted and there were many egregious comments he made about other people during the case with some additional taunting of the Arbs on the case talk page. Kiefer regrettably decided to go out shooting. For people to then whimper and whine that he is just being silenced for raising legitimate issues about da childrens is dishonest and exploitative. I expressed my opposition to a site ban several times, as well as expressing opposition to the very idea of a case, but I am not so foolish as to suggest there was not very good reason given for the ban.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Wikipediocracy spam, check! Posted by someone lacking the courage to use their regular account, check! (Curious also that the blog criticizes anon editing, yet this person won't put their name - either real life or regular account - to it). Attempts to pass an editor who exhibited serious, extreme and unrepentant behavioural issues off as a martyr, check! Nicely done! Resolute 01:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Spam? Okay, then maybe you could provide a legitimate reason why an adult user would want to contact at least three young boys off-wiki? I mean he wants to mentor them, fine, but why to do it off-wiki? Please tell me, I'm all ears.50.174.76.70 (talk) 02:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Also worthy of note is this blog putting forward the child protection policies of the Boy Scouts of America as a model for us. The core of that program was homophobia, and the program was a catastrophic failure that didn't prevent thousands of cases of child molestation but instead tried to minimize public knowledge of them. Check! Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Please give me a break. What it has to do with homophobia? 50.174.76.70 (talk) 02:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC) You seem to be adept at trying to knock down strawmen while avoiding the key point. Perhaps this might help: This is the organization whose child protection policies you trumpet. Stellar journalism, guys. Really. The kind of stuff that will land you a job with Fox News or the Daily Mail. Resolute 02:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC) You will get no break from me, so I will be more succinct: The BSA is a deeply homophobic organization with a long record of covering up child abuse. Why do you promote their failed "child protection policy"? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC) I do not not promote anybody's child protection policy. This post isn't about the Boy Scouts of America, and this post isn't about homophobia. This post is about kids who edit Wikipedia, and I still haven't gotten a response to my question which is: could you please provide a legitimate reason why an adult user would want to contact at least three young boys off-wiki? 50.174.76.70 (talk) 03:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Neither your question nor the blog post provide reliable information that would enable any of us to answer that question. Perhaps this hypothetical adult user is a pedophile, and perhaps they are someone sincerely mentoring younger editors. Just like pre-1985 scout leaders. But innuendo is an addictive drug to many. Several things are certain, though, regarding this blog post. No broad context is provided regarding the edit history of the "hero" of the tale, since that would take air out of the balloon. And also, the blog post promotes the failed child protection policies of a homophobic organization. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC) you mean the one where the adults are never supposed to be one-on-one with any youth, at least 2 adults must be present, all adults go through background checks, etcetera? -- Aunva6talk - contribs 02:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC) We are not talking about whether a one paragraph summary of their standards "sounds good", but whether it is actually effective. Lawsuits have forced them to release old records which show their old failures. They refuse to release newer records, though lawsuits are bearing down on them. Until those records are released, I am extremely skeptical that they have solved their problems. Until this year, they routinely ousted innocent gay Scouts. They continue to oust innocent gay Scout leaders. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC) the homophobia is an entirely different matter, or, at least, it should be. anyways, this discussion is wandering away from whatever focus it should have. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 03:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Putting homophobia aside boy-scouts are entirely different kettle of fish than wikipedia editors. Boy-scouts have direct physical contact with their adult supervisors, the adults are often in position of authority to the children, etc. Underaged wikipedians are forbidden to identify themselves as such, their physical whereabouts are hidden, all on-wiki activities are constantly monitored and opened for scrutiny. The different risks dictates diffeent level of precautions Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Are you really claiming that either the blog post or the original question had "focus"? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC) I dunno, if not, then maybe WP:NOTFORUM applies here... -- Aunva6talk - contribs 03:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Jimbo has repeatedly made it clear that this talk page is a forum, a place to blow off steam and a place to discuss "edge" issues. So this is probably the page where that link applies least. If Jimmy Wales wants to end this discussion, I will comply. I think Wikipedia needs responsible criticism. I think Wikipedia needs to address contact and conduct between minors who edit and adults who edit. That being said, the hidden story behind this blog post is really the story of a talented editor going off the rails very catastrophically, and the post fails to contribute, in my opinion, to that necessary conversation. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC) If my post fails to contribute, it's only because the kids' privacy is involved, but I could provide some specifics. After off-wiki email exchange with his "mentor" one of the boys came to a strange conclusion. The boy said that his mentor "enjoys caning naughty boys". Do you believe it is a matter to be concerned about? 50.174.76.70 (talk) 04:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Well, thanks for at least admitting you are Peter, Mr. Anon. That being said, given your history, you'll have to forgive me if I put zero stock in your good word. If you have actual evidence of actual wrongdoing, take it to the police. Otherwise, I have found that "Won't someone please think of the children?" is often a phrase used to try and mask ulterior motives. Resolute 04:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC) problem sherlock PD is in London, this IP is near San Fransico. It is more likely to be a WMF employee than PD. 62.49.31.176 (talk) 06:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Don't really care either way, but the IP could be a proxy and the above exchange does read like an acknowledgment of authorship. Of course, the IP user could also be lying. Again, don't really care.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC) typical of this site bitching about the messenger rather than the message. Oops that is what the WO post was about, so no surprises that the wiki cultists would all do the same here. 62.49.31.176 (talk) 06:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC) If we consider IRC not to be a part of Wikipedia then it is way safer for children than play on public playground, walk down the streets, attend schools or borrow books from a library (there might be an offensive graffiti or an indecent letter in the book. I do not have much of a positive experience with the Wiki-IRC and other Wikipedia-related internet forums like wikipediocracy but I am under impression that they are not ruled by Jimbo or Wikimedia. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for stating your opinion, but my questions were not answered. Let's forget about the blog and about the whistle-blower. I'd like to ask you to respond my own "yes" or "no" question please. After off-wiki email exchange with his "mentor" one of the boys makes a post on his mentor's user page stating that his mentor "enjoys caning naughty boys". "The mentor" quietly removes the post, but fails to issue a warning to the boy. Do you, Mr. Wales, believe it is something to be concerned about? Thank you. 50.174.76.70 (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, I am talking about kids, and simply ignoring my question doesn't look good I'm afraid. Maybe more information will help you to respond. "The mentor" has edited almost every article connected to corporal punishment, caning, spanking and so on. In particular "the mentor" has edited the following articles: Birching;Cane;Caning;Caning in Malaysia;Child discipline;Corporal punishment;Corporal punishment in the home;List of methods of torture;Murga punishment;Paddle (spanking);School corporal punishment;School discipline; School punishment ;Slippering;Spanking;Switch (corporal punishment).50.174.76.70 (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Rather than accusing me of ignoring you (after less than 2 hours) and perhaps rather than snarky innuendo, you could post links to things that I could actually assess. I'm sure you'll understand that I'm reluctant to trust vague reports from someone who doesn't even have the courage to log in and use a name of some sort. But to be clear: if your description is honest (which is impossible for me to determine) then yes, that's a matter of serious concern. Evidence please, rather than innuendo. I just checked the editor history of one of the articles you link to, and there are dozens of editors. Who are we talking about and what have they done and what proof do you have of it? Vague philosophical questions are useless.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

you could post links to things that I could actually assess. Whilst you did seem to know enough first thing this morning to label it as "a long string of outrageous insulting", you could ask ArbCom just how sure they are about that this evening. John lilburne (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't conflate two separate issues. The blocked editor was very much guilty of "a long string of outrageous insulting and otherwise bad behavior having nothing at all to do with child protection". So I'm not lamenting his block, as I think he should have been permanently blocked a long time ago. (Check his block log.) The entirely separate issue of another editor's behavior is an entirely separate issue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I've looked at the block log. All of this year has been various episodes related to the "spanker/caner" and the boys. Around xmas last year there was an issue concerning "inappropriate/creepy" comments made by someone towards women on IRC. You're an intelligent fellow does it not seem to you a "blame the messenger" ethos that has developed here which needs addressing? John lilburne (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not about "blaming the messenger". It's about not giving someone a free pass to abuse other people repeatedly just because they are making accusations of a serious nature.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it not? When I looked I didn't see a whole load of abuse as such. But it is no surprise if someone who reports suspicious or inappropriate behaviour gets forceful in a public forum. The problem here is that there is no effective communications channel where issues can be reported and timely feedback given. Emails to ArbCom may take weeks before being acknowledged (if at all) same with the WMF. Feedback/response should not be dependent on whether a group of people like the reporter or not. Whether the reporter is a pain in the arse or insulting is of no matter. Similar reports on flickr get a response back within 24hrs. There is no need for statements or drama being propagated into the public forums, no escalating name calling, etc etc. John lilburne (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, how do you feel about the fact that the editor who offered to "mentor" these underage WP participants and communicated with them privately is still allowed to edit Wikipedia with no restrictions and has posted here to your talk page numerous times? Cla68 (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know any details about it, and other than dripping with innuendo, your description doesn't tell me anything useful. Why do you put the word 'mentor' in scare quotes? In general, I think it can be perfectly appropriate for people to help teenagers learn to edit Wikipedia, and that's often going to take place via email. So if you are asking an abstract question is it ok for someone to mentor teens and communicate with them by email, well, yes of course, there's nothing inherently problematic about that. I assume though, that you're (as usual) trying to catch me in some kind of "gotcha" and you're withholding something you think is damaging. What is it?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, thank you for your response! My description is absolutely honest, and there are on-wiki links to prove my words, and I haven't told you everything yet, but I cannot post the links to your talk page because the 14-years old privacy is at stake. The boy provided his first and his last name on wiki, as well as the city he lives in. He has also uploaded an image of himself.50.174.76.70 (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Then use email instead of a very public forum.--MONGO 11:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Attention whores don't like email because it doesn't give them the ego hit that using a very public forum does. Resolute 19:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

See what happens when someone uses a public forum to highlight another WP governance failing? Some WP hero hiding behind an anonymous account name insults them. No Jimbo, I wasn't trying to "gotcha", just trying to remind you that you're making it very obvious that you and the WMF aren't doing anything more than paying lip service to the child protection policy. Cla68 (talk) 23:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The child protection policy is strictly enforced.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, check your email. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I will.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, you mean you wouldn't have minded if your kid was getting emails from an anonymous stranger, especially if this stranger states something like that on his user page: "This user observed, received, and administered corporal punishment while he was a schoolboy"? 50.174.76.70 (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd need more information than that to make a decision. You've asked, implicitly, two questions here: "You mean you wouldn't have minded if your kid was getting emails from an anonymous stranger" and then another question about "especially if". First, no I don't mind if my teen gets emails from an anonymous stranger. That's what happens on the Internet all the time. People meet other people in online forums, mailing lists, wikis, blogs, etc. Any parent who thinks that their teenager isn't going to have contact with strangers online is really confused. Now, what if someone has that on their talk page - I think that's certainly weird, but I don't immediately jump to the conclusion that the person is a pedophile. What is the content of the email? But a more important question for us is not "what does Jimbo think, as a parent" but rather "what should we do about protecting children". And my view is that we should do what we already do: vigorously enforce the child protection policy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The 14-years old boy states that his "mentor" "enjoys caning naughty boys" before his "mentor" makes any significant edit to any article related to caning and before his mentor adds the weird user box to his user page. Do we need to know anything more about the content of the emails? 50.174.76.70 (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps both accounts are controlled by the same user (or some group of users) in order to make a point about our child protection policy? Count Iblis (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Far-fetched, but not impossible. Both would have to be controlled by the then 14 year-old since their real-life identity is easily confirmed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities. 50.174.76.70 (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

To really protect underage Wikipedia editors, we could set up a large number of fake accounts pretending to be underage children. Since there aren't all that many real child editors here, the number of fake child accounts could easily vastly outnumber the number of real child accounts. Then a pedophile attempting to groom a child here, would almost always end up contacting a fake child, triggering an alert. Of course, it won't be long before it becomes widely known that most accounts pretending to be child editors are fake accounts, but then that would deter a pedophile from even trying to make improper contact with a child here. Count Iblis (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The Internet! Where the men are boys, the women are men and the boys are FBI agents - David Gerard (talk) 10:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what you think about this

The admin who will be closing the Manning page-title debate has listed you as voting to support the current title, even though you never actually voted. This is fine in and of itself, as everyone's opinions should count in discussions like these. The problem is that while 3 other users have voiced support for moving the page back, the same admin who counted your user-talk-page opinion as a full-fledged vote has listed these other 3 as "out of process supports" and said that since they didn't actually vote, they will not be taken into consideration when it comes to the final result of the page-name. It seems clear to me that you wish your opinion to be given equal, rather than extra, weight here. Do you find this fair? Joefromrandb (talk) 05:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Because !voting is, well, not voting, I think it's fine to include my views - the actual count doesn't really determine the answer. I don't know what the other 3 users said, so I'm not sure how their comments should be treated. I suppose it would make more sense to me to move me to "out of process oppose" since I didn't really join the process. But it doesn't seem like it really matters all that much, so I'd mostly like there to be more focus on the content of the debate rather than proceduralism.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

As I have commented in response to this concern on my talk page, it is premature. I have not assigned any weight to anything yet, and when the time does come for 'assigning weight', I will be one member of a three-admin panel to consider the issue. bd2412 T 11:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Who are the other two administrators? --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

User:BOZ and User:Kww. Their names were presented to me as options when a three-admin panel was suggest on the WP:ANI closure page; so I asked, and they agreed to help. bd2412 T 12:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

User:BD2412, In that discussion that you linked to, you wrote "I interpret WP:BRD as requiring a consensus in favor of a title different than the one that existed yesterday, in order for such a change to be effected." — Which title is "the one that existed yesterday"? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Kww is quite experienced at closing RfC's, and judging consensus, and the three-admin panel is really the way to go with large RfC's... it's pretty much standard actually... as far as the title goes, the status quo is whatever the title was before the editor boldly changed it. I feel the system of BRD is working as intended, an editor boldly changed something, and now, we are discussing whether or not to keep the change, thereby preventing any possible edit warring or other disputes over it. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 14:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

User:BD2412, Please note that I would still like to hear from you regarding my last message since you are a closing administrator. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

My sandbox is just that, a sandbox; it is a collection of notes sketching out issues that I have not fully thought through. If I fail to immediately notice an editor having switched their !vote, it is helpful to bring that to my attention (although I will certainly review the count very closely once the discussion closes), but otherwise the contents of that page are of no moment to the discussion. Bear in mind, in most instances, the closing administrator does not even look at the discussion being closed until the discussion is complete. In this case, the number of participants and the number of issues being raised makes it worth taking some broad notes in advance of the more intense deliberation which will occur after closure. bd2412 T 15:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

User:BD2412, Since your above message doesn't seem to fit here, did you mistakenly post it here instead of somewhere else? --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

My above message is in answer to your question. I'm afraid it's all the answer I can give you. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps BD2412 has misunderstood Bob K31416's question. It's clear from the timestamps that "the one that existed yesterday" is "Bradley Manning". – Smyth\^talk 20:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo, This is starting to look like there's going to be a closing fiasco like the one that occurred with the "verifiability, not truth" RfC. I hope not. As you pointed out back then, there was a super majority consensus for removing "verifiability, not truth" that the three closers interpreted as no consensus. In this case, it would be a matter of the closers deciding what title should be kept if there is no consensus, the new one Chelsea Manning, or the previous long-standing one Bradley Manning. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

That's the trick, though - the term majority, in this context, has no relevance. The number of editors on one side of the issue or another is relevant, certainly, but the side with fewer editors will prevail if the strength of their arguments is the greater. And that's why we have three admins, experienced and respected all, who will read the comments and the discussions, judge their merit, and determine where consensus lies. As for a no consensus close - obviously, a no consensus close will default to the wrong title. And editors will shout from the hills that there was indeed consensus for their preferred version, and lots of good people will have their feelings hurt, and then we will move on. If we can't trust these admins to close, then who? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, a "no consensus" would default to "Bradley Manning", rather than the wrong title. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I was referring to The Wrong Version. Which name is the wrong version is precisely what is under debate. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

That went right over my head (certainly not difficult to do). I regretted that post almost instantly, but I had just gotten fed up with a handful of editors (the ones declaring "case closed", "we will absolutely not be moving it back", ect.). It seemed to me that you were using Jimbo's page to grandstand for a title-change. Had I realized that you meant the proverbial wrong version rather than the actual wrong version, I wouldn't have responded in that fashion. Sorry about the misunderstanding. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Unanswered questions from the archives

Hi Jimmy, is it okay to bring back unanswered questions from the archives here? I have been reverted twice for trying to do so. I see others doing it occasionally. I hope you don't consider it abuse of your talk page. How do you feel about other editors deleting such questions? 192.81.0.147 (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It's too bad WP:BADGERING is a redlink. Looie496 (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Because we have this. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 04:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with either of these responses. It can sometimes be ok to bring back threads that have been archived, but it's a judgment call as it might be regarded as badgering or trolling. I sometimes don't answer threads because I think other people have answered the question well enough, or because I don't have enough information to say anything useful, etc. Simply reposting isn't always going to change that, but asking again in a different way (perhaps giving me more information to work with) can be useful.

To answer briefly each of the specific threads that the ip address is inquiring about.

1. Webcite - I have no strong view on this. I think it is a valuable service and I hope it is saved. I hope that they will get in touch with the Foundation in a direct professional capacity to inquire about the possibility of a grant. I don't think the Foundation should take over or try to provide such a service, since the software is completely different and we have no experience in that area. However, I am not the decision maker on such things, and it would be wrong for me to push my own mostly uninformed views on staff on a question like that.
2. Readership statistics by organization - I'm opposed to this. My view is that when you edit Wikipedia, you are taking a public action and so of course we publish edit histories and so on. But reading is a private matter and everyone - even people who work for organizations - has a fundamental human right to read what they wish to read in Wikipedia. I suppose it would be fine to have some research on reading patterns from different groups of people, but even there, specific organizations aren't really the interesting research questions. I'd like to know what women tend to read more of relative to men, or what people tend to read during "lunch time" wherever they happen to live versus "dinner time".
3. My talk at Wikimania - I see nothing in this that I could respond to. I could, I suppose, respond to Kumioko's trolling, but I see no purpose in it.
4. Two threads relating to Monsanto - looks like an ordinary editing dispute with COI allegations with no new implications. This is the sort of thing that I take a keen interest in, of course, but as my wife has just had a baby, I'm unlikely to have the time to directly look into this one unless I'm persuaded that it's a bigger and more interesting issue that most.
5. Gulf war syndrome - even more than the Monsanto one, this doesn't look like something that rises to the level that it would need my attention. The question is better asked at the talk page and if more eyes are needed, then posting in a relevant board would make sense.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Even a small response is a great help to make progress. The two threads are about Monsanto and Bayer. I hope you will ask about any such medical issues which may seem fishy at WT:MED please. Best, 192.81.0.147 (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

And at m:WebCite, where I posted this, we should have a reply from a WMF tech staff person shortly. Biosthmors (talk) 09:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Secret RFCs?

I was wondering if one could avoid long protracted discussions (like e.g. now about Manning) if instead of a big RFC one were to hold a RFC where editors are asked to email the closing Admin(s) with their arguments. One could consider doing this if an initial RFC points to not enough consensus on the issue. Typically what you see in such cases is that any formation of consensus one way or the other is pushed back against by the other side coming out more. Also, you usually get a large number of separate discussion threads that the closing Admins will have a difficult time reading.

Those discussions may be useful for individual editors to form their opinions, so it wouldn't be a problem for this to happen in an initial RFC. If that RFC would have a clear consensus, the closing Admins don't really have to read all that has been said in every thread. But if there is no consensus, then I think it's better for a secret RFC to be held via email. In that case, it could be helpful to post the number of people who have responded so far every day and to close it at a certain date, unless not enough people have responded by that date. Count Iblis (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That is a truly dumb idea. Since noone could see the evidence, it would make every decision the whim of the admin chosen to close it. ('From now on, Chelsea/Bradley Manning is only to be referred to as "The Perilous Poozer of Pamplemousse Pass". I can assure you there was an overwhelming consensus for it. Sorry, I can't tell you who supported it, that's secret.') Mogism (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Please let's try to refrain from saying things like "That is a truly dumb idea". It will be better to simply explain the problems with some idea that you regard as dumb, without bringing in a harsh judgmental tone.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, that can be dealt with by appointing a panel of Admins, one can be a sitting ArbCom member and all the emails can be published after the closing of the RFC. Count Iblis (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC's should continue to be open discussions. I do think that they (or at least the more controversial ones) should be closed only by an elected panel of multiple editors. Otherwise the results depend too much on who steps up to be the closer. It is somewhat encouraging that in the Manning situation, there will be three closers, but I don't think that's enough. By the way, Mogism, I believe you have misspelled Pomplemoose. (I never realized it before, but that book is a pretty good analogy for Wikipedia itself at times.) Neutron (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I think there is some merit in the Count Iblis suggestion, although I'll quickly add that I see it as a useful supplementary process, rather than as a replacement. I've been doing something about the processes we use for decision-making in Wikipedia, which have many strength but some short-comings. I hope to write an essay soon with some thoughts about how to improve the process, without giving up our core beliefs in community consensus. My nascent thoughts include a process which has some of the attributes of that proposed by the good Count. Like all new ideas, it is likely to crash and burn, but I'll give it a shot.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it would be interesting to work out an idea like this in deail, so I'll read your essay with interest. The objections that have been made in this thread about discussions being useful can be dealt with within such a process, as you write it's not really a replacement for RFCs just an additional tool that will be available. Count Iblis (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I think people are surpassingly unlikely to be swayed by the results of secret RFCs. They barely accept the results of public ones if they're not 95:5 or more - David Gerard (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Secret RfCs would deter news/updated facts: A major benefit of the current system, of open RfC discussions, is to allow for new/updated facts to be highlighted in the ongoing discussions. For example, when Manning's attorney announced, on 26 August 2013, how Manning expected reports about the trial to use name "Bradley" and "he" then that reduced the potential for disrespect of not using the current transgender as "she". Now, if the RfC closes as use title "Bradley Manning" then at least many people would be informed of the expectation of Manning to see the name "Bradley" in historical references, which I think is a major benefit of allowing an open RfC to respond to news/updates which are noted during the discussion. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Gibraltarpedia. Again.

[17] Attempting to get rid of DYK restrictions. I think you might want to weigh in here before the semi-secret vote closes. AwarenessNow! (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Calling an RfC a semi-secret vote is funny. Agathoclea (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Even with these restrictions, there have apparently been 20 Gibraltar-related DYKs this year. Twenty seems like a lot for such a small place, but whatever is driving this shows no signs of stopping so why keep fighting it? Let's open the floodgates and see what happens. There should be another X-pedia project along soon to replace Gibraltar anyway. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

To answer the question you posed in your edit summary: I, for one, am very unlikely to care when an "OMG SCANDAL" thread is started by an anonymous coward. In fact, I am half tempted to go in and support the lifting of restrictions, simply because of this thread. Resolute 19:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Yea, I mean, who wants to evaluate the merits of a given situation and weigh the pros & cons of the differing points of view? That there's just crazy talk, when voting out of spite is so much easier. Tarc (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course not. But to be perfectly honest, when I see socks starting threads like this, my thought process going in to review the merits of something like this would likely become one of "why should the restriction not be lifted?" as opposed to "why should the restriction be lifted?". Or to put it simply, these little panic threads aren't likely to elicit the kind of response the OP is looking for from me, especially when our anonymous coward has to rely on deliberate misrepresentations like calling an RFC "semi-secret". Resolute 22:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I actually sympathize with how you feel, Resolute, but I also agree with Tarc. One thing to remember is that my talk page in particular is a place where some of our self-styled critics like to post things in highly inflammatory ways while leaving out key details in an endless effort to catch me personally in a "gotcha".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Whole WP today now secure HTTPS

Just FYI of latest bizarre WP changes. I see today the "https:" secure-server prefix is being forced into every "http:" page on English Wikipedia, after appearing in other-language wikipedias last week. We had just recently re-indexed Google to use normal "http:" prefix for all those pages, and now I wonder what will happen to them: "Parabola", "Hyperbola", "Gone with the Wind", "Hexagon", "Basketball" or "Alan Turing", etc. This weekly MediaWiki-update crap is really over-the-top, so now I see:

"imagine a world in which the sum of all human knowledge
is presented in a new computer format every week"

It has become totally wiki-bizarre. The continual morphing of WP every week is very unsettling, with new Wikidata one-to-one language interwiki restrictions, dropping the Classic or Nostalgia browser skins, or forcing the "edit" button to invoke VisualEditor, or double-buttoning of "edit | edit-source" (or "edit wikitext" in some languages), etc. All of those distractions are just too much mental overhead, and I would predict many former users would be driven away. New users would not realize the continual morphing until months later, but even they will feel the instability of working with user-interface mush. Imagine when the wp:FLOW crap hits the fan. Although some people thrive on constant change and newness, most people tend to be "creatures of habit" who will be disturbed by all these questionable weekly changes. Just saying, for the record. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Can be reset in Special:Preferences: in top Basic information, uncheck "[_] Always use a secure connection when logged in". -Wikid77 13:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the tip. I've found and turned this off now and am able to use Wikipedia in Chrome again. Warden (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing will happen to them for now, they use the canonical tag, and the canonical/non logged-in views of Wikipedia are still http by default. For now, as stated in the blog, that would be step 4 in the 7 steps to secure the website. At that point all wmf wiki pages might be indexed as https. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

This change to https is the way of the future. My view is that all websites should move to https as soon as they practically can. The question of the impact on users of 'release early, release often' is an interesting one, but I don't think it will have any real impact at all on regular users. Things change on websites, and people adjust to it - especially if the changes are for the better. (And often, the only way to know if a change is for the better is to actually try it!)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm a regular user and my access with Chrome is now fubar so I've had to regress to IE and that's not progress. I suppose it will get sorted eventually but the lack of choice makes the workrounds more problematic than they need to be. Why are these changes always forced upon users? Warden (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean with "my access with Chrome is now fubar"? (This comment is written with the chrome browser, using https). Belorn (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• I mean that the display was munged to the point of being unusable. It's just like Mordac says, "Security is more important than usability. In a perfect world, no-one would be able to use anything." Warden (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• It would be helpful if you provided a screen shot. As you describe it, it does not sound as an issue with the certificate, as such manifest itself as clear error messages and not issues with the pages itself. More likely, this sound as an issue with plugins (are you using Wikipedia plugings for editing?), using an unstable version of chrome, or a hardware issue. A blog by one of the developer or StarCraft and Guild Wars wrote that about 1% of all their users who played the game had hardware issue (memory corruption), which often in a tiny and non-obvious way corrupted or crashed the game. People can use a computer with corrupted memory and not notice any issues for years, and most will disregard random crashes as "well, that is how computer are". So please, rather than cite dilbert and try to be cynical, help use help you. If it is an issue with wikimedia, then it will get a bug ticket and get fixed to everyones benefit. Belorn (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Warden, were you using the "dev" version of Chrome? If so, reverting to "stable" helps for now. It's not all due to https: - Chrome are rolling out their "aura" versions in dev. releases, and aura is pretty resource intensive and slow on my system, using its own widgets for scrollbars/combos etc instead of the native OS widgets, and incorporating GPU accelerated stuff. I'm hoping they get aura working better before it comes out in "stable" or I may have to junk Chrome too. Of course, if you weren't using "dev" then none of this probably applies, but I thought it was worth a mention. Begoon ^talk 16:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Chrome continuously updates itself so I don't pay attention to its version as it's usually transparent, unlike these Wikipedia changes. My problem has to do with certificate bugs but I'm not here to fix that. I've toggled the https preference now and it's back where it was before this unasked change was made to my preferences. Warden (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• @Jimbo, what is the advantage of this actually supposed to be? I've read m:HTTPS but it doesn't really shed any light. I'm sure 99.999% of users couldn't care less if the CIA are reading their pageview history even in the unlikely event they'd want to. That just leaves public wi-fi snooping, which for most people is an issue that will never arise, and even if it does then realistically how likely is it that an identity thief will want my Wikipedia logon? (Yes, you live in San Francisco with wi-fi access points all over, but the huge majority of the world doesn't and isn't likely to ever log on to Wikipedia over public wi-fi.) There may well be an advantage I'm not seeing, but it hasn't been explained, and at the moment this seems to be slowing everything down and breaking everyone's scripts and browser histories for no apparent gain. Mogism (talk) 09:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• you might be suprized what can be considered incriminating nowadays. I use https everywhere, so I used https already anyways. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 13:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
• https prevent, among other things, password and username stealing (also called credential information theft or identity theft). This is common threat in school, airports, coffee shops and conferences, and is commonly used by criminals for attacking bank or shopping accounts. They gather a bunch of username/passwords on unrelated websites, and then try said username and password on sites they want to access. Most people use the same username and password for everything they do, which mean that most wikipedia accounts will also be their amazon login credentials and bank password. Looking at polls made in 2010, 7% of US households experienced identity theft. That maybe isn't a majority of the population (and we should all be happy about that), but it is still a large enough number to worry about. https helps a bit by denying attackers the chance of stealing loging information from people using the site. If you want to read more about it, here is a article that describe this in much more details. There are also concerns in making people *feel* safe using Wikipedia, and that include guarding people against the perceived threat of NSA. We do not want children or family members to be afraid of looking up important articles like child abuse, just because they feel threaten that "a scandal might come out" using unsecured browsing. Belorn (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
• The concept of "incriminating" is outdated. I strongly urge people to read this proposal, made by federal contractors regarding Americans who in some way associate with Wikileaks. Or consider a case like Justin Carter, an ordinary kid having his life turned upside down because of a one-liner in online gaming chat that was intercepted and reported by an unnamed Canadian woman Etc. This is bin Laden's century, and the world is ruled by terrorists - sometimes on the streets, but usually in the government. Wnt (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Invention

Hello, Jimbo Wales. You are invited to join WikiProject Invention, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of inventions and invention-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

"Gotcha" update

Jimbo, I hope you won't dismiss this as a "gotcha" attempt. Many of us readers of JimboTalk are actually interested in what you have to say about some of the issues that have been raised, but seem to quietly fade away without any real resolution. So, here goes!

1. Do you still stand behind your statement that "Socialtext no longer exists"? If so, what do you make of this impostor website?
2. Were you able to chat with Richard Stromback about how it appears he (or an agent acting on his behalf) has managed to manipulate Wikipedia content to serve his messaging goals? If so, what did he have to say?
3. Did you contact Wikibilim to find out why a portrait of Karim Massimov appears on all of their site's pages? If so, what did they have to say?
4. This is a new one, not a follow-up. You serve as an outside advisor to Sunlight Foundation. Many of the financial supporters of the Sunlight Foundation are also financial supporters of the Wikimedia Foundation. Do you have any comment about the following Wikipedia editors: User:Paulblumenthal, User:Stereogab, User:Ebankey, User:96.231.127.110, User:71.191.1.8, User:68.50.74.96, or User:69.244.92.218? Do you think it might be useful to "advise" the Sunlight Foundation about your "bright line rule"?

Looking forward to your responses. Promise, no "gotcha" here. - 2001:558:1400:10:C0FA:EA90:8D88:5AAF (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Socialtext no longer exists as a company because it was acquired.

Rich Stromback said that he knew nothing about it. Perhaps you'd better ask him directly yourself if you'd like more information than that.

I haven't contacted Wikibilim yet. My wife, as you may know, just had a baby.

I have no comment about those editors, have not reviewed their contributions, and know nothing about it. I have never advised Sunlight Foundation about Wikipedia editing at all, nor do I intend to start now. If you think there's a problem, then please take it up in the appropriate venues.

You say there is no 'gotcha' here but now it's your turn to answer some questions. Who are you? Why are you going through news reports looking for anyone I happen to know and looking for conflict of interest editing and asking me about it here? What is your motive? Why don't you just get the point. If you are hoping to show that I condone conflict of interest editing if it is done by someone I know, that's total bullshit. I never condone it under any circumstances. I also don't make it the first thing that I say when I meet people. Indeed, I don't bring it up at all in social settings or professional settings unless I'm specifically asked for advice about it. And when I'm asked for advice, I'm 100% firm and consistent. Is that answer the one you were hoping for? Of course not. You're looking to smear me, as usual.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

"The Foundation does not require editors to register with a project. Anyone can edit without logging in with a username..." I don't want to speak for 2001:558:1400:10:C0FA:EA90:8D88:5AAF, but it appears that the motive is to try to resolve the cognitive dissonance that some of your seemingly contradictory beliefs and actions are causing for him or her. You have to admit, if we had such a "quacks like a duck" scenario similar to the editing related to Mr. Stromback, but the subject was not a drinking buddy of the founder of the Wikimedia Foundation, it's likely that more would have been done to restrict and roll back the editing, to preserve Wikipedia's NPOV. I don't know if others believe that Rich Stromback knew nothing about this or this or this, but given what we all know about the patterns of COI editors on Wikipedia, it defies all conceivable logic to think that Stromback didn't know anything at all about those edits. You seem to accept Stromback at his word, but you publicly criticized Bell Pottinger's "ethical blindness". That's why there are so many questions based on your mixed signals. - 2001:558:1400:10:F92D:8ADF:AE1E:8DD8 (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Time to flog those dead horses again I see...--ukexpat (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I can answer two of those questions. Socialtext no longer exists as a company, which is clearly what Jimbo meant when he said "Socialtext no longer exists, and I don't know anyone at the company that acquired them". Karim Massimov is the patron of Wikibilim, which is not news. Formerip (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, you can answer one of those questions incorrectly, given that the California Secretary of State's list of business entities shows that Entity C2505424 (Socialtext, Inc.) is marked as "ACTIVE" through Tuesday, August 27, 2013. As for Massimov being the patron of Wikibilim, we know! We're curious why Jimbo said "we totally reject the possibility of state control over the content of Wikipedia in any language", yet promised $5,000 of his own money to a program dedicated to the content of Wikipedia, that is primarily run with state-controlled money. That may not strike you as a matter of concern, but other intelligent people are most definitely concerned about it. - 2001:558:1400:10:C0FA:EA90:8D88:5AAF (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Crikey, it didn't take you long to break your "no gotcha" promise.

On the first point, my guess is that either that either that database doesn't get updated on a daily cycle or Jimbo has revealed his shocking ignorance of California companies law. Either way, I don't see any reason to suppose it's a big deal.

On the second, I'll confess to not being very concerned about Wikibilim, based on what I know. But why are you asking questions if you already know the answers? You're concerned? Fine. Set a reminder on your phone and state your case here every time it goes off. Just do it without the innuendo and nonsense. Formerip (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, Formerip, you seem to be the one desperate to turn this into a "gotcha" opportunity, given your really hare-brained explanations for how Socialtext just might not exist as a company, even though they have a fully operational website, it's labeled in the footer as "© 2013 Socialtext, Inc.", it's listed in the California database of business entities, in which data is updated every Wednesday and Saturday morning, and that all Dissolutions and Surrenders filed prior to August 19 have been processed. Why are you so frantically clinging to the notion that Socialtext doesn't exist as a company? What sort of "gotcha" are you hoping will be sprung on us? If Socialtext does still exist as a company, then "it's a big deal" because Jimmy Wales served on its board of directors. One would hope that would give him at least a modicum of understanding of California companies law. It also becomes a "big deal" to consider the fact that Wales sits on the board of directors of the Wikimedia Foundation, which is situated in California. If Wales is so easily wrong about the very existence of a company on whose board of directors he recently served, can we reliably trust in anything he says about organizations which he leads? I can assure you, if I were ever asked about any entity on which I've served its board of directors, I could tell you with 100% confidence whether or not that entity still "exists". Jimmy Wales said that "Socialtext no longer exists". It is a completely bizarre and erroneous statement to make, unless there is some (probably convoluted) explanation for what he meant to say. Maybe we can wait for him to answer, before his supporters try to jump in and deflect for him? - 2001:558:1400:10:C0FA:EA90:8D88:5AAF (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Come on, Columbo, you can keep your cool better than that.

I don't really care whether Socialtext exists as a company. It isn't interesting. It was subject to an acquisition last year, according to its WP article. I don't see how its bizarre to think of it as no longer existing. It may be wrong, but I'm not a company lawyer. What I do think is bizarre is caring so much. Formerip (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Socialtext no longer exists as a separate company under the ordinary understanding of the term. It was acquired by another company. It might also be worthwhile to note that it was acquired *years* after I left the board of directors. (I left in 2008. The company was acquired in 2012.) Is the new company keeping the company registration up for some reason? I have no idea, nor is it in any way important. Nor does me not knowing suggest that I'm somehow deficient in the understanding of corporate law necessary to serve as a member of a board of directors. Those looking for a conflict of interest may find it amusing to note that the total value of my stock options earned as a board member netted me a grand total of around a dollar. This was not a particularly successful exit for the company. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Not only is the attempt at a "gotcha" transparent, but the gotcha used is absurd. I should step back and say I have no experience with California's system, but in New York, which I imagine is not so very different, the Secretary of State is not some all-knowing automatic updater of a company's actual status. Rather, if you want to go "inactive", you either have to affirmatively file a certificate of dissolution under BCL §1003 and pay a $60 fee to file it, or simply stop paying your corporate franchise taxes, some time after which your active status will lapse. Ridiculous.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Wondering what policy is on this

What exactly is policy on how to list the "main topic" of a disambiguation page? My specific issue is Albany, according to the talk page the traffic statistics on the three cities who have been listed as the "refers often to" is as follows- 38,000 for Albany, NY, 10,500 for Albany, GA and 7,000 for Albany, Western Australia (posted August 11th and I take no responsibility for accuracy). My concern is that Albany, NY with 3 times the traffic of the next highest, along with being the city with the most population of any on the list of Albanys, the largest population of a metro area on the list, and the Albany that more other Albanys are named for, not to mention being mentioned on tv and movies more often (and being used in filming more tv and movies); all this makes me believe Albany, NY would exclusively be the "main topic" should there be a need for a main topic. However, I acknowledge my bias and seek outside opinions.Camelbinky (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. Something is the primary topic if it is "more likely than all the other topics combined to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term" or "has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term". Neither appears to apply here. FWIW, considerably more of the other Albanys (including Albany, NY) are named for the historic name for Scotland (either directly or indirectly via the Dukes of Albany), than are named after Albany NY. See also the many many discussions linked at the top of Talk:Perth - any move you make is likely to provoke a very long and heated debate. Mogism (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Doing some very rough estimation, if Albany, New York is what people are looking for 2/3 of the time, then 1 in 3 people will be sent to the wrong article if they simply type "albany" in the search box and hit enter. At least with the current situation, everyone has to choose the article they want from the options on the disambiguation page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The hits for this month are - Albany NY 28,300 - Albany GA 8,400 - Albany NZ 7,000. There are other articles that get 1,000 or so; I haven't looked at every one. However, the main issue is that the disambiguation page itself only gets 2,500 hits, suggesting that only 5% or so of editors find their way to articles in that method, instead landing there directly from internal or external links. So I'd suggest that it doesn't actually really matter that much. Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Shutting down the trolls on this page?

Jimbo, I know you've had an open-door policy on this page for a long time, but I think it's obvious to everyone that it's being routinely abused by the banned users who congregate at Wikipediocracy. Right now there are three threads on this page that were started by sockpuppets or IP addresses on topics that are quite obviously related to posts on Wikipediocracy. I'm sure I don't need to point out that they are not here in good faith – as you've rightly said, they're trying to create "gotcha" moments so that they can attack and embarrass you and Wikipedia. It's borderline harassment at the very least. But you know what they say about not feeding the trolls – they thrive on the reaction they cause. If you shut down troll threads as soon as they appear, they'll lose that satisfaction. Right now, unfortunately, you're playing into their hands by letting them reopen threads you've closed (as in the case of the #Child protection policy thread above). It also doesn't send a very good message when you tolerate banned users – who have been banned for very good reasons – posting here. Prioryman (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, this is his own talk page and he has the right to do what he wants with it. Some people on that site make a record of everything he deletes and call it "censorship", echoing better arguments by spammers who claim a right to be represented in your email inbox, but we do recognize the right of any user to clear out unwanted junk from their own page. Wnt (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes Wikipediocracy denizens make good points, and sometimes they make bad ones, that is the nature of any grouping of people. Just check the bylines of the blog-of-the-week in question and skip over any that list "Peter Damian", an editor who never met a fact that couldn't be twisted into a pretzel for his own needs. The rest are pretty decent. Tarc (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could leave Jimbo's talk page forever, take it off your watchlist and assume that the co-founder of wikipedia is a big enough boy to deal with questions all on his own. Here's an odd thought (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, my initial thought upon seeing the thread title and thread creator was "but where will you go?" Tarc (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Very funny, especially considering you've just followed up to yet another trolling sockpuppet. Prioryman (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It's probably just Vigilant, who, like Earth, can be classified as "mostly harmless". Tarc (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

You spend too much time worrying about this. Mangoe (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

He spends too much time creating high quality articles for Wikipedia. I guess occasionally he takes fifteen minutes out to look at some of the opposition that some of those articles have provoked from certain quarters. And can't resist commenting. Understandable, really. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Er, what does Scientology have to do with any of this? Tarc (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

One of the denizens mentioned is an avowed Scientologist, several more are proponents of ridiculous fringe science (and banned from Wikipedia for their methods of pushing it here, right?), and looking at some of the material prepared and promoted there (for example, the ridiculous incoherent attack on Mathsci for being too successful in getting disruptive fringe-science POV-pushers banned from Wikipedia, in between the forum being laced with alternating posts decrying Wikipedia not respecting subject area experts while simultaneously excoriating Mathsci for being a subject area expert)... where to even start? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it has anything to do with it. The "avowed Scientologist", if it's who I'm thinking of, was an single-purpose contributor here who got topic-banned and promptly went over to Wikipediocracy, the home of the butthurt, to whine about it – presumably after someone pointed him in that direction. No, it's more about the way that the nutjobs from there are persistently targeting people here for lulz. I'm sure Jimbo is fed up with the obsessive way that these people are hounding him. God knows it's irritating enough seeing the same crap coming up over and over again here. As I said at the start of this thread, I think it would be much better all round if he simply refused to engage with them at all and cut off the oxygen supply to their mutual masturbation society. Prioryman (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I must admit, I've pointed several people to Wikipediocracy over the last year or two. Might not have been the people they wanted, though ;) But they manage to recruit much more "nutjob", as you put it, people on their own. Not suggesting they try to, it just... happens. Maybe it's self-perpetuating for any Wikipedia "criticism site" that reaches a certain % of users that are already banned here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Prioryman, please correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be trying to project your feelings about Wikipediocracy onto Jimbo. You aren't trying to do this, are you? Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as Scientology goes, there was precisely one proponent, one whom I particularly enjoyed taking down a notch or two (he didn't really like it when I pointed to list of disappearances and deaths), and pretty much everyone else at the site ridiculed as well. The website does have flaws but don't paint it as some sort of haven for fringe science, since it isn't. Tarc (talk) 23:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Some of the staff (moderators) and such there are banned from Wikipedia due to their behaviour pushing fringe science here? Or do I misunderstand that? And those same people are involved in writing these "blog posts" (including one attacking a rather widely respected academic) that are Wikipediocracy's public face? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

@Demiurge. You in particular have got plenty of room to complain about your personal treatment at Wikipediocracy without trying to frame reality in this way. You must surely be aware that it is flat wrong to intimate that the WPO/Prioryman foodfight has anything whatsoever to do with his well-known editorial proclivities towards one particular so-called "new religious movement." It's beyond disingenuous, bordering on intellectually dishonest, to point out that if one WP topic-banned Scientologist has posted there this somehow indicates a pro-Scientology "community standard" at WPO. Anyone who has paid the slightest attention to the relevant threads knows that quite the opposite is true. The heavy and ongoing criticism of Gibraltarpedia and the general issue of quasi-commercial Did You Know abuse is not a stalking horse for anything. It is unadulterated criticism of what it professes to criticize. Take it at face value. By the same token, the fact that a partisan of the Lyndon LaRouche "new political movement," shall we say, is a moderator at WPO doesn't reflect community standards there about that movement either. It reflects the personal views of one person, a person who is sometimes right about things, and sometimes wrong — as are we all. The "critics of the critics" tend to see Wikipediocracy as a monolithic entity. In reality, it is a message board with participants who run the gamut from ArbCom members to the most bitter and intractable enemies of The Project. There is nuance and there is debate and there is disagreement. And the community standard there on the issues you raise at are quite the opposite of what you intimate. Carrite (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Mr. Wales, my post above is not about Wikipediocracy, and not about Peter Damian, and not about the blog, and not even about the whistleblower. My post above is about the 14-years old boy who said that his "mentor" "enjoys caning naughty boys" before his "mentor" added "This user observed, received, and administered corporal punishment while he was a schoolboy" to his user page. I was called an "attention whore" and a "troll", but so far I haven't heard an explanation of the described behavior. 50.174.76.70 (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Surely you aren't asking me to explain that behavior? If not, then what are you asking me?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

You said: "I'd need more information than that to make a decision." I provided more information, and now I'm expecting you to make a decision.50.174.76.70 (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

You have provided insufficient information. Can you link me to the ArbCom case on this matter?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Results of the investigation

Hello all,

We long time ago watches this story: http://www.webcitation.org/query?id=1377218089643919 (it was the real leader of the band Bravo). I recommend delete the article about this band. Only red links there, the more so. Checking: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Хавтан,_Евгений_Львович (link to his website is here).

Kind regards. - 2.94.150.72 (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC).

• So what is your point exactly? Why cannot you edit the article (Bravo (band) I presume) or nominate it for deletion yourself? I am not sure Jimbo is an expert on Russian rock music. The talk page of the aricle or WP:Russia or Wikipedia:WikiProject Music (or even my talk page) are probably much better places to discuss the article. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Nathan Van Wilkins, rampage killer of zero persons

Nathan Van Wilkins is currently in jail awaiting trial on charges of shooting 18 people in Alabama just over a year ago. Nathan Van Wilkins is currently a red link (but posting this here may change that). If someone were to write Nathan Van Wilkins, I would probably nominate it for deletion on the basis that he is known only for that single event (i.e., WP:BLP1E). Note that none of the people alleged to have been shot by Wilkins died. This has not prevented Wilkins from being added to List of rampage killers: Americas.

Jimbo, it is nearly to impossible to keep track of all the places where living people can be maligned on WP, but articles like this are almost attractive nuisances. Many of WP's articles on mass murder and serial killers border on glorifying the details of these horrific crimes. There is a list of rampage killers for each of five regions, sortable by number of people killed or injured. Each of them includes at least one entry where no persons were killed. I am not suggesting that we do not have articles on significant events, but can we show a little bit of editorial discretion and decide at least that we do not need to have lists of rampage killers on WP? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

See also List of familicides in the United States and related articles. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems clear that someone who didn't kill anyone shouldn't be on any list of killers. The desciption "rampage" killer seems less neutral than perhaps "mass" applied to those who killed more than five people. And perhaps there is a useful distinction between people who kill lots of other people in a single day, and those who do so over time, who are commonly called "serial" killers. I haven't checked, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility that someone who shot 18 people might be notable. BLP1E is a good tool, but some people are truly notable for essentially a single event. Sara Jane Moore is a good example. She didn't kill anyone either, although she tried. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Cullen328, there will be some people in those lists who are notable, but my issue is with the lists themselves. You won't be surprised to learn that someone removed Nathan Van Wilkins and other non-killers from the list of "rampage killers" after I started this topic, but you should be surprised to learn that the removal was reverted. Despite being "the sum of human knowledge" there is much that we deliberately exclude with our notability guidelines, BLP policy, and other editorial considerations. I think we can live without these lists. Let's leave this for actual scholars of these types of crimes. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The 'List of rampage killers: Americas' is yet another example of the way that WP:BLP policy is routinely grossly violated by list-obsessed contributors. 12 of the 120 individuals named are listed as 'arrested' - which is to say that the article describes non-convicted individuals as 'rampage killers'. Can anyone give a legitimate reason why the article shouldn't simply be blanked until such time as it complies with policy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think we can live without these lists. - I think not, instead. What we should push is for such content to be semiprotected permanently and well watchlisted. I'll add it to my watchlist. If you want the list deleted, DC, anyway AfD is that-a-way. Dancing the drama dance every week on Jimbo talk page helps your ego, no doubt, and possibly keeps the WO forums bubbly: but it doesn't really help your cause. Andy: Blanking may be a last-resort, but just trimming the problematic entries should be enough. Thank you for doing that. --cyclopia^speak! 13:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

"trimming the problematic entries should be enough". Nope. Not while the endless crass violations of WP:BLP policy (and libel/sub judice laws etc) go on. It shouldn't be necessary for contributors to have to endlessly monitor articles for such violations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

DC is smart enough to know that there is no chance of a deletion, so creating drama is his only real avenue. That said, there are points worthy of consideration here. First off, if consensus is to retain shootings where nobody died, then the article needs renaming to something like List of rampage shooters. Second, I certainly agree with Andy that non-convicted people should be removed. I vehemently disagree with blanking as a viable option. Especially given the number of citations. As to the "glorification" of crimes, that is a societal problem DC, not just Wikipedia. Follow along with the Luka Magnotta case here in Canada for an example. Resolute 13:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Editing environment

Jimbo, What are your thoughts regarding the current editing environment on Wikipedia, i.e. how editors interact with each other and how productive that interaction is? And where do you think it is heading? Also, is it what you expected it to be when Wikipedia began? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It's about the same as ever. Not as nice as it could be in parts, but nicer than one would expect from looking at other communities.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)