Jump to content

User talk:Jimbo Wales

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Canadacrox (talk | contribs) at 16:45, 6 October 2013 (→Apology in full: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    (Manual archive list)

    Fixing broken 2013 RfA process

    Yes, RfA problems again. I also tried a wp:RfA (aka "Request for Abuse"), after 8 years of waiting, and it was still as bad an experience as everyone has been warning:  block-log entries from 3-7 years ago were treated as if yesterday, and many insults were over-the-top. The quickest fix: as you, Jimbo, have suggested:

    • Have a house of wikilords: There needs to be a system of appointed wiki-lords, as users given various user rights, perhaps selected by groups of similar-focus admins, to be rejected only by strong evidence of problems, and because wikilords are *appointed* then they could be unappointed, perhaps temporarily, at any time when their actions seemed to diverge off-course.

    Currently, the RfA process seems like a "insta-poll popularity contest" rather than a "job interview" and the main focus directs people to issue judgmental decisions of Support/Oppose within seconds of starting an RfA page. Also, there are unusual cultural twists in RfA discussions, such as treating rebuttals to objections as being "badgering of opposes" rather than a logical discussion to clarify misunderstandings. Because I was a formal debate judge for years, I was not fooled to refrain from refuting incorrect claims (bottomline: debaters who fail to refute claims partially will lose a formal debate). Plus, of course, the RfA process allows the same level of insults as could be expected at wp:ANI, except each user's wp:RfA page is named with their username as an obvious, obvious case of "wp:Attack page". The whole process is completely awry, and I had to respond quickly to refute wp:NPA insults which would otherwise stand as accepted by begging the question. Anyway, the only workable solution, to the current judgmental RfA process, is to separate the interview-period from the judgement period:

    • Split RfA into interview days versus judgment days: Hence, an RfA would begin with a questions-only phase of 4 days, as a job interview, with perhaps some competency tests depending on the stated intent of the candidate. Then, another period, of perhaps 4 days, could be the judgment period of Support/Oppose/Neutral.

    The 1st, interview phase would discuss issues, and hopefully, follow "rules of evidence" (real evidence, not spin-doctored slants) to have specific diff-links; plus the focus would be on asking questions about the activities which the candidate would be performing. If the questions, or potential admin tasks, seemed too difficult, then the candidate could withdraw during the first phase. Then the 2nd, judgement phase could be longer if any insults were redacted meanwhile, by a neutral moderator, so that a candidate would not have to watchdog the RfA as being an outrageous personal attack-page during the whole time period. I was totally unaware that an RfA was like a wp:ANI thread open to insults, except with a person's username "flashing in lights" as a beacon to come see the insults by name. No wonder some people refer to the RfA period as a horrific experience, and as I said, if I had not been a debate judge for years, I might also have been tricked in allowing insults to stand, unrefuted, because of fear to avoid "badgering the opponents" who hurl unfounded insults. However, a separate "House of wikilords" would allow quick appointments, such as a request for 20 bilingual admins if an avalanche of new articles were created with non-English sources, pushing the limits of notability decisions due to a lack of other-language skills. Anyway, I would warn anyone, who plans an wp:RfA, to be prepared to defend yourself from over-the-top insults during the whole time period, and do not be fooled into keeping quiet to refute claims just to avoid "badgering of opponents" while insults are hurled without restraint. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh man, this is so sad. You were making such a good impression with your posts in #VE bad links on 22 September above, and then you go and spoil it with this section. If I got snowed that bad, I would step back for some serious personal meditation and reflection rather than come vent in this most public place. I see that apparently some admins have behaved so badly that they have been topic-banned; I didn't realize that. So perhaps life is unfair and there's a double-standard here, you'll have to deal with that. Maybe just focus first on getting that ban lifted first, before applying to be an admin? Hope you can apply for the template editor user right soon, good luck. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the words of encouragement, but other users have been coming to this talk-page, warning others for years about the RfA process, and the problems in the RfA process need to be pinpointed, in order to be improved. There have been prior discussions with vague details about various RfA experiences. However, in this case, I saw the distortion in progress, because I had lived the actual details for 8 years. Also, other people have warned there was discrimination against users with block-logs, and the attitudes should have improved by now, but I was even condemned for a wp:3RR block 7 years ago. Also, I had to remind people how I was strongly advised to retain my topic-ban about college student Amanda Knox acquitted of the 2007 Murder of Meredith Kercher (her British flatmate in Perugia, Italy), because many other users had been indef-blocked, and my topic-ban protected me from getting blocked along with them. Recently, long-term power user Rich_Farmbrough (WP's highest edit-count for years) was indef-blocked (site-banned) after users could not learn to work with him, and so that shows how anyone can be blocked despite the incentive to try to keep a valuable editor by finding ways to work together. If people cannot understand how that topic-ban has protected me during the past 3 years, then I wonder if they understand how to think like an admin, and how to use tactics to protect users from newcomers being secretly investigated for advocacy stopped by indef-blocks. Anyway, I just wanted to let Jimbo know what I saw in the rush-to-judgment of a popularity contest, which does not wait 4 days while discussing issues before entering an Oppose/Support/Neutral comment. Next time someone reports problems in the RfA process, then this can be a point of comparison. As for me, I am far too busy to perform admin duties at this time, so I am relieved that my RfA was closed early, and I just objected to the general RfA process. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Farmbrough is not "indef-blocked (site-banned)", he was blocked for 1 year, and as far as I know still can use his talk page. I admire the way he's conducted himself during the block. In contrast to another editor who a couple months ago was indefinitely blocked, email disabled, and cannot edit their own talk page. Please just stop digging your hole deeper. It's painful to watch. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Farmbrough might have a 1-year block now, but I do not think anything has changed to work with him, so upon return he would get another 1-year block? ...as I said, "indef-blocked". His restriction of "no automated edits" was untenable, and when he violated it at the end, he made more than 1,000 repeated changes inside a page (sending a clear message I think), so I suggest a compromise where he might use automated edits but with a mentor to approve those edits, or reduce the scope of edits as needed, but not zero automation. -Wikid77 08:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wikid77. RFA is a broken process, but not entirely the way you think. Old issues rarely cause opposes unless people have reason to think that they persist, one test of a good candidate is to be able to demonstrate how you've resolved such issues. The good thing about RFA is that it isn't a popularity contest, a sufficiently over qualified candidate can sail through with over a hundred supports, the vast majority of whom have never previously interacted with them. The bad things include the overreliance of the !voters on the Q&A section and simplistic measures such as raw edit count and length of tenure, combined with galloping standards inflation, but standards inflation re the most easily measured criteria. My fear is that good candidates are being deterred by arbitrarily high requirements for edit count and tenure, (as well as the occasional incivil participant) and that we risk bad eggs slipping through due to insufficient scrutiny of their actual edits. But the good news about RFA is that the long decline has bottomed out, after five consecutive years of sharp falls in the number of new RFAs, 2013 has already seen as many successful RFAs as 2012. RFA still has problems, we are a long way from being able to appoint as many new admins as we lose to retirement etc; So we are still heading towards a cliff, but are no longer accelerating towards that cliff. ϢereSpielChequers 07:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, other factors have shown a resurgence in Wikipedia activity, beyond more new admins, such as people asking why protected-template updates from 3 years ago did not get installed. Plus I imagine the VisualEditor did not hurt editor retention, because over 94% of editors avoided it each week. As for the RfA process, I see niche groups supporting a fellow editor, as a way to increase the support pile-on, and I think that might be an effective way to overcome judgmental restrictions; however, the danger is to promote a candidate with a secret agenda to use the powers in other ways. In cases of editors blocked for the Amanda Knox case, we see an unrelenting determination to thwart them, as evidenced in User_talk:Charlie_wilkes#Block where a responding admin refused the unblock request because his supporters all knew him from the same article, the only article (duh) where we all worked together, and he had provided reliable sources to disprove a claim how suspects lied about when they called police, as later refuted by sources. However, my RfA is an extreme case of someone topic-banned with numerous editors blocked, while trying to write about what was later confirmed in court. However, I think splitting an RfA into an interview phase, with later judgment phase, would give people more time to see the hollowness of several editors all blocked together who were later proven correct by court reports. Yet, insults about my knowledge of Wikipedia software, or misinformation, were likely too complex for RfA discussion and scary to others. Technical people need to be selected by a panel of technical users; otherwise it could be too confusing/boring for others to follow. But again, approval should be recommended by a random sample of users who review a candidate. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @WereSpielChequers. Quoting myself on these things: Timbo's Rule 16. The slogan of "Adminship is No Big Deal" needs to be reestablished. Currently RfA is a 7 day proctological exam, conducted by a tag team of 150 people of differing intentions — some of whom wish to subject the patient's rectum to blunt-force trauma during the process. Only people who REALLY like proctologists would be advised to run. (July 2012) /// Timbo's Rule 17. Then again, proctological exams do help ward off certain types of cancer. (Oct. 2012). Carrite (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a lot of misunderstandings about what is wrong with RfA. A truly huge amount of research was done into it at WP:RFA2011 that pretty well identified the real problems. Among the regular !voters (and this pool of editors changes slowly over time in a cycle of about 2 years or so) there are three main factions: Those who feel that every established editor should have the bit, those who think adminship in general should be abolished to be replace by some other totally different system, and those who provide well researched, objective rationales for their votes whether they know the candidate or not. The remainder and the vast majority is a very transient pool of people who have only ever voted on one or two RfAs. Among these are the ones who very often appear to fail to understand what adminship is all about and probably do little or no research and just pile on.
    It's interesting to note that en.Wiki is one of the very few major Wikipedias not to have introduced a minimum requirement for voting at RfA. If it appears that the dearth of candidates seems to have bottomed out, this is possibly due to the fact that the traditional PA and incivility at RfA has somewhat, but not entirely abated. I think we should give it a little longer however before claiming the improvement as a clear trend. That said, whether we have enough candidates or whether RfA is really a 'horrible and broken process', it does do it its job reasonably well - if the very rare close calls demonstrate anything. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Kudpung, oddly we might agree on the close calls if not on the rest. I fear that RFA and especially its reputation is scaring away many well qualified candidates. Paradoxically the shift in focus of the RFA community from judging candidates on their edits to the Q&A section and simple stats such as number of edits and length of tenure may also be letting more bad eggs through. I've seen one admin from recent years be desysopped despite getting over 90% support. I doubt we have sufficient stats yet but it would be interesting to see if the last couple of hundred admins wind up with a lower proportion of bad eggs than the earlier batches. ϢereSpielChequers 18:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I think a few troublesome admin promotions could be expected, and "people have a right to be wrong about a candidate" but they do not have a right to treat an RfA as a named wp:attack-page, so I will be more vigilant to check for attacks posted to future RfA pages and redact vicious insults, to be sure people provide adequate diff-links to support their claims. The more people who view an RfA as a cordial discussion of qualifications, then the better the chances for more candidates to apply. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The systems that deal with the Admins and ArbCom won't be changed because they have become fundamental parts of Wikipedia and you'll never get a consensus to make significant changes. That's why e.g. the de-admining propsal failed. It's similar to why in the US Congress has a very low approval rating but any proposal to make even small changes to the system (e.g. term limits), is a non-starter.

    Perhaps what could work is to make a copy of the entire Wikipedia (Wikipedia-beta) that has the same articles but which has a different Adminstrative infrastructure. Then, if over time the beta version is seen to work better, then one makes that the standard version and one can then try out some new experimental changes by creating another Wikipedia-beta. Count Iblis (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It will be difficult, if not impossible, to change the RfA system as long as current Admins have a stake in keeping the standards high and the barriers to entry arduous. If there is a large enough group of Editors, they could impact how RfAs are done but I gather most do not even know about the RfA process, much less be aware that when there is an active one going on and how they can participate. Active Admins (I think there are about 700?) are disproportionately represented among users who weigh in on a RfA.
    So, until those Admins realize a) that they are carrying too heavy of a load, b) that having more Admins will actually be a net gain to them personally, c) that for the future operations of en.wiki, more Admins will be needed as 1 or 2 new ones are added each month while more and more Admins become inactive, until these realizations happen, I don't think change is likely. And so, the number of active Admins will continue to drop and drop because fewer Editors want to subject themselves to the RfA process which often becomes more of a hazing than an informative interview. Liz Read! Talk! 19:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it actually admins themselves being querulous on RFAs? Did the 2011 or any other study show this? - David Gerard (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Of the various RFA reform proposals I can think of one that tends to be opposed more strongly by admins than non-admins. I suspect this is the source of the "admins are blocking reform" meme, though I'd prefer a description of admins are blocking those proposals they believe would make things worse rather than admins are playing dog in a manger, but then I would wouldn't I. There was a study some years back as to RFA !voting by admins and non admins, as I remember it, it showed that admins at RFA were usually as supportive as non-admins. It would be good to repeat that, or at least to ask if anyone repeating that meme can point to an unsuccessful RFA that would have had consensus for promotion if all the admin !votes had been discounted. ϢereSpielChequers 23:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe that 'current Admins have a stake in keeping the standards high and the barriers to entry arduous' - this is most likely a myth put about (partly) by those who believe to have wrongly failed at RfA or wannabe admins who feel the criteria are too severe. Generally speaking, I think admins provide the most thoughtful and objective comments at RfA. Moreover, several of the admins who are most concerned with the dearth of candidates have been actively scouring the users for candidates of the right calibre whom they can nominate for some considerable time, not to mention Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination - another project launched by an admin. The reading list at Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates includes all known users' RfA criteria, while VOTER PROFILES at RFA2011 has an enormous amount of research detail with a complete breakdown and analysis of who and how often users voted and whether they were admins or not, and the increase in participation of voters at RfA. Nothing has changed much since that time except that 100+ 'supports' are no way as rare as they used to be, but FWIW I suppose the regex could be re-run to update it. It would be good if people would refer to these important stats before positing hypotheses. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In the 2011 study of votes, non-admins !voted support about 70% of the time, admins !voted support 76% of the time. (Support % calculated as Support divided by support plus oppose plus neutral). This pretty much puts a nail in the coffin of the idea that it is admins are the barrier to new admins.
    • Here are the basic facts of life, which apply to the OP (and to me — assuming I wanted to run the gauntlet, which I don't — and to dozens of others in the same boat)... RFA is a supermajority process, which means a motivated minority can sink a nomination. If one makes noise about controversial matters, one builds up a little fleet of "opponents." Add a misstep or two on the block log and it's pretty much curtains for passing a RFA. It doesn't matter if a person needs some of the tools for their work and not others; it's a unified package that includes The Nuclear Buttons — block and delete — and there's going to be high scrutiny for that. That's fair, I reckon. Bottom line is this: if one wants to be an Administrator, one needs to be perfectly bland and to keep the block log clean, both. Is that a fully rational requirement? Not really. But it's a fact. That's show biz. If there actually is a shortage of admins either (a) more frenetic efforts will be made to find and recruit perfectly bland candidates; and/or (b) the nuclear buttons will be separated from the rest of the tool kit and a more "chill" process instituted in lieu of the current RFA process. If no such shortage develops, things continue as they are now, with all that implies. Yeah, it sucks if you need some of the administrative abilities for your work; no, it's not fair. But that's the way it is. Carrite (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing about blocks, most legit reasons for a block raise a question of the blocked person's self restraint. If you couldn't restrain yourself when using the non-admin tools, are you going to be able to with them? I know that is a gross over simplification of the myriad reasons a person could get blocked, but it covers a surprising number of them. As for holding controversial opinions, most aren't much of an issue at RFA, instead, there are some RFA third rails, that can sink a request. The biggest ones are being overly deletionist, particularly with CSD, and showing authoritarian tendencies. Monty845 04:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Admin covers everything from gnome work with the mop to making immensely complex decisions where mistakes do huge harm to people. Those things need to be split. The latter needs a high standard. Current admins have been keeping that from happening.....with an obvious conflict of interest on that question, they shouldn't even be weighing on on that question. And the process should be changed to have the discussions center on the required qualities, not the current criteria which rules out anyone who has ever taken a stand which some involved people disagreed with. North8000 (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, having the new admin process broken means that the overall standard is "got in when it was easy" North8000 (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Current admins have been keeping that from happening" - so far the evidence is the opposite. Do you have evidence (e.g., verifiable statistics) to support your claim? - David Gerard (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My experience has been that each time it is brought it I see an admin shut down the discussion with a comment something like "that is an old idea which has been already reviewed and rejected" . Or when the conversation starts on whether such is happening an admin can chill or kill it by implying that concerns are unfounded / improper to express unless the person expressing them meets the impossibly high bar of having "verifiable statistics" of that concern as you just did.  :-)  :-) What realistically could satisfy the criteria of "verifiable statistics" of such? Conversely I know that just expressing the concern does not establish it as fact. North8000 (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Verifiable statistics were cited above in this discussion, so I disagree that it's an "impossibly high bar", unless you more generally consider the general requirement to supply some sort of evidence for controversial assertions inherently flawed - David Gerard (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Now you just switched to a different more reasonable bar. ("some sort of evidence"). The only thing unreasonable thing is you incorrectly implying that I objected to such a reasonable thing. North8000 (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Regardless of what some may want people to believe, there is almost nothing in the admin toolset that cannot be undone with a simple reversion. Its just not that big of a deal. So there is no reason whatsoever with guarding it like the Crown Jewels. And even as hard as it is to get rid of a bad admin, if they misuse the block tool, they would probably get their access yanked pretty fast. So really, all the hyperbole about people getting into mischief if they had access to the toolset is just hogwash. With all that said, no one believes anything will change regardless of how many times its brought up until a crisis ensues. That being either no admins being promoted for a prolonged period or too few active admins to accomplish the necessary tasks (which really has been the case for some time now given the length backlogs at many of the venues). The bottom line is, unless the community decides it needs to change the process or Jimbo and the WMF step up, its going to stay broke. 71.126.152.253 (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocks and deletions can in theory be easily reversed, but few are and their effects are not so easily resolved. When we block someone or reject their contribution by deleting it we risk losing that editor, so it is really important that we keep the block and delete buttons out of the hands of those who would use them in a heavyhanded way. ϢereSpielChequers 09:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh please, there are already no less that a half dozen admins who delete mercilessly and no one is chomping at the bit to remove the tools from them. And as I already mentioned, if they abuse the tools then take them away. We are already driving away editors at an alarming rate. So the argument doesn't really hold water. Its just a poor justification for a bad policy. 71.126.152.253 (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @North8000 I can appreciate that it might look like the current admins "got in when it was easy", criteria inflation at RFA means that candidates need far more tenure and edits than was required in 04/07. But tighter criteria only means higher standards if they are the right criteria. In my opinion the shift in focus from checking candidate's edits to weighing their edit count and giving them an open book exam on policy means that RFA not only deters a lot of good candidates, but is probably less effective at screening out "bad" candidates than it used to be. Better in my view to consider it a situation where RFA is so broken that it cannot appoint sufficient admins to replace those who we lose. ϢereSpielChequers 09:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The current criteria doesn't mean higher standards, the current criteria simply means that one cannot get involved in administrative stuff (because much of it is controversial) until after they get the tools. In order to be an admin, editors have to plan to be one and carefully monitor their actions and their activity so they don't ruffle any feathers. All it takes is one misstep or to bump into an admin with a chip on their shoulder about some article they wrote ten years ago that they "own" and you won't get the tools. That is not how the system should work. RFA is a broken system and virtually everyone knows. Its time to stop justifying it and protecting it and fix it so I completely agree with your last sentence. Let's be honest. Any editor who has been here a few years or has a few thousand edits and has a history of knowing policy should be able to get the tools if they want them. If they abuse it then the beauro's can take them away. Its just that easy, bottom line. We need to let people help the project. Not give excuses why we don't want or need their help. This project needs all the help it can get these days. If that means the WMF and Jimbo have to get back involved with the RFA process for a while as a reviewer and hand out the tools then so be it. The community has shown that we can't do it effectively. Jimbo said a year ago he was going to do something, where is it? 71.126.152.253 (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The flag of Spain is banned in ca.wikipedia.org international listings of flags. Why?

    (first of all, sorry for my bad english, is not "very good looking" hehe)

    There is a BIG problem there:
    Amical, (the secessionist association, "owner" of ca.wiki, I guess, with a secessionist president of some catalan ARMY who says FREE CATALONIA SOON !???, with a secretary proud to be a WAR FISH) this WAR-LIKE people (against who? I expect not Spain) that controls ca.wiki, is making the Wikipedia in Catalan languaje fall into a very biased and dangerous nationalism. Only an 8 or 10 percent of catalan speaking people and territories are secessionist, against the rest of catalan speaking people and territories, the Spanish Constitution, the Autonomous Statutes, the European Union, etc... BUT the secessionist government of a little region that speaks Catalan is paying about 9.241 euros to that association and other "gifts" like giving them power (to change history to invent new hatred) in Public Libraries, Museums, Schools, etc...
    Source: Secessionist regional governor subsidizes Wikipedia in Catalan, that says: "Catalonia is a State of Europe" SHAMEFUL.

    In grey, vast majority territories where Catalan language is spoken

    So, please, can you ask ca.wikipedia.org be enciclopaedic and put back the spanish flag in international listings of flags? One example (there are about 10000 more in cawiki): Host nations of Olympic Games (where is Spain there? who is changing history with hate like Goebbels tried to do?

    Hilarious (and sad) situations arise as replacing the flag of Spain by the local flag of Catalunya region, suggesting that the Kingdom of Spain did not exist at the 1888 Barcelona International Exposition or that lie: Spain did not participate in the Host nations of Olympic Games of 1992, also censoring Spanish Olympic Committee to shamefully ban the Spanish flag in that list. Examples:

    It's normal, extreme nationalism is excited using Wikipedia to invent history, that also goes to the extreme right or the extreme left -Why these people do not use their own wiki to invent their own stories they invented?-, but there is something a person can not to invent: the history. Like it or not, the history takes us we can not invent.
    We (and the historians) hope you fix solution to this scandal, as this shameful ban of Spanish flags, as well as being full of hatred, goes against all historical encyclopedic accuracy, and goes against what Spanish and American municipalities, institutions, organizations and schools want to give to their children. Spain exists in 1888, in 1992, and Today, and either wikipedia will not change history under dark interests. Sorry for my bad english. But donations have to work with us, not against us. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.144.90.9 (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think you're leveling with us. I see [1] and pages and pages more of links to the flag of Spain. Pages like [2]. The only complaint I see is that the people on the Catalonian Wikipedia give a Catalan flag for some cases where things happened in Catalonia. That's a touchy POV issue either way, and I certainly don't know the answer, but I would hazard a guess that many Catalonian-language sources would do that, no? Our article Catalonia#Politics gives the impression that Catalonian nationalism is a roughly even split of opinion. No need for people off-project to get involved in their content disputes. Wnt (talk) 01:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Though on consideration I should acknowledge that using the Catalan flag and nationality for the 1992 Olympics, which I assume was hosted by the Spanish Olympic Committee, may well be a mistake even by this standard. Wnt (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wnt, I don't think you are being fair pointing out that the Spanish flag is used on Catalan Wikipedia, because that is obviously not what the anon is complaining about. It seems to be more about the exceptional treatment of the Catalan flag, so that it is used as we would expect it to be used if Catalan was a sovereign country. So, for example, you have football players categorised as Spanish or Catalan, rather than just as Spanish (as we would do it on en.wp) or as Catalan, Andalucian, Valencian etc. I don't know whether this is acceptable or unacceptable and I would suppose a key question is what sort of consensus has been developed over the issue. Formerip (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We had a similar discussion not too long ago here on User:Jimbo's page. It did seem Jimbo was personally interested in getting involved and was looking for more information on whether, especially in the specific topic of the Olympic host country issue (eg- Is Catalonia ever mentioned as the host "country" as opposed to Spain?). I hope he is still interested and responds here on if he has gotten anywhere on an opinion.Camelbinky (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In that discussion, it was apparently determined that it was an interesting issue back in 1992 and that in fact both the Spanish and Catalonian flags were used during the Olympics. That strikes me as relevant. If there is a general massive bias then yes we should be concerned. If there is a curious anomaly on this one article and it is arguable one way or the other, then I trust natural wiki processes to help us to arrive at a reasonable compromise. I would love to hear from more people from Catalan Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    So, I guess posting BLP violations on Jimbo's talk page is kosher as long as the targets don't speak English? Among other things, the above message accuses living persons of being "war-like," members of "dark interests," of being "full of hatred," and comparing them to Joseph Goebbels. Of course there's the distinct possibility that I'm the first person to actually read the whole thing, as opposed to glancing at the huge wall of text and having my eyes glaze over. --108.38.191.162 (talk) 04:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you mean civility issues and personal attacks, not BLP, I think you are stretching BLP too far to include anything said about any living persons, this is a talk page, no one in particular was "outed" or singled out for attack. But, yes you probably are the first one that didn't have your eyes glaze over. But yes, on Jimbo's talk page I think it has been customary to give a bit more leeway to ramblings and let them be ignored instead of trying to hard to correct, as often they have a legit complaint buried in the ramblings and we don't want to discourage people from coming to Jimbo's page.97.88.87.68 (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, this (most probably) user (with another IP) has vandalized pages cross-wiki by replacing contents of random pages with this issue. Not just once. --Glaisher [talk] 12:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Although the original comment leaves something to be desired, [3] does seem to be a problem. ca.wiki's article on Segunda B is two years out of date, but still, it seems to imply that Orihuela and Zaragoza are part of the Catalan-speaking countries. Sceptre (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    That looks to me to be a badly-designed bot. I'd be surprised if any human editors over there agreed that it was an appropriate edit. Formerip (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Wiki-pr.com

    This US PR firm claims to be able to manage their customer's Wikipedia page through "our network of established Wikipedia editors and admins". Philafrenzy (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I realize these kinds of services aren't anything new. They claim to have a team of 45 editors/admins and "engage on Wikipedia's back end." Yikes. Is there really anything to be done? I, JethroBT drop me a line 09:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as they do as they state and respect the rules, then they ought to be welcome. I know that is a painful message, but no rule here states that editing Wikipedia is a right only granted to the unpaid editor. It ought to enhance the project if they are speaking the truth. Fiddle Faddle 10:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think these editors and admins have disclosed that they are being paid for their work? Philafrenzy (talk) 10:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think that the claims made by Wiki-pr.com are necessarily true? Fram (talk) 10:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but they evidently have enough business to support several employees and would presumably quickly lose their clients if they couldn't deliver results. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This particular outfit has been discussed before:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive770#Promotional_email_for_.22wiki-pr.com.22
    I will add that the nature of the company's business cutely means it can't really identify any satisfied clients...which could either work against Wikipedia, or work against its clients.
    In any case, since it is impossible to prevent well-disguised PR editing, the only solution is to carry on editing the encyclopedia meticulously. The efforts of the non-PRs should outweigh the PRs'. Barnabypage (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The most obnoxious part of this is that they are advertising the services of admins. Surely we could do something about that. As for "it is impossible to prevent well-disguised PR editing", I think the problem is that we really haven't tried. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    What could we actually do to prevent an admin, even, working for this or another PR firm? (Rather than merely discourage it.) Barnabypage (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want rules that will prevent something happening 100% of the time, you will never have any rules. That is not a serious argument against having rules and other measures that will strongly discourage PR firms from editing Wikipedia. Among other things we could do:
    • Make a clear rule that admins who accept pay for editing, commenting or taking admin actions will be banned immediately and forever.
    • Inform PR firms through a clearly stated policy that any hidden advertising will be reported to the FTC. You do realize that this is against the law, don't you?
    • Inform the FTC whenever a firm openly advertises services that appear to include hidden advertising.
    I do believe that those measures would strongly discourage most PR firms from doing this, and make it clear to their potential clients that they would be dealing with disreputable firms. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that we can, and should, have rules and policies. They will deter reputable agencies from underhand editing, which is a good thing. The problem as I see it is that the most unwelcome PR editing, that which severely distorts the truth, is likely to be the sneakiest and connections with a PR agency are likely to be impossible to prove. So yes, by all means have rules (which are complicated by the possibility that some PR edits could be quite welcome), but let's not imagine that the problem goes away.
    Re the FTC, if you're referring to the rules on social media endorsements, that's another arrow in our quiver but of course very many PR edits would not be endorsements as such. Barnabypage (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Some English athlete got in trouble for tweeting about a product without revealing that he was being paid, IIRC. America is probably more lax about this, and anyway the Wikipedia is a carrier and not liable for content; you'd have to after the individual editors. The FCC is not going to be bothered with stuff like that I wouldn't think, so that's probably off the table. Herostratus (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually the law on hidden advertisements is a very old law that predates the internet and is enforced. You wouldn't accept hidden ads on TV, why should you accept it on Wikipedia? Given that these hidden ads are against the law and hurt Wikipedia's credibility, why are some people so opposed to stopping it? In many cases there is at least one obvious possibility. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is not so much enforcement as detection. Having said that, I'm perhaps unclear what you mean by "hidden advertisements". Barnabypage (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    To put new rules in place would require the community to have consensus to do that, and that's quite unlikely, because there are a number of Wikipedians who either (for various reasons) don't really agree that this is much of a problem, or else think the problem's intractable and not worth spending energy on. We do need to keep our eyes on and keep discussing this, without becoming scolds. Certainly it's fine and good for the original poster to bring this up, as it should be from time to time and when there's a new development. That's probably all we can do for now.

    We do have Bright Line, and that's something. We need to keep that line bright. I think most people would agree that an admin using admin tools -- editing through protection, blocking another editor, and so on -- in return for money would be unacceptable corruption (and also a violation of Bright Line, since I doubt many admins would write on a talk page "Editor X made some edits which are not in the interest of my employer, so I propose to block him. Thoughts?"). Hopefully this is incontrovertible enough to not need codification. Herostratus (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • PR people editing WP is a fact of life. It has been for a long time and it always will be from now on. The choice we face is either playing Whack-a-Mole with one arm tied behind our back (Anonymous editing with "no outing" rules, no Sign-In-To-Edit, IP editing permitted, etc.) or whether we come up with a set of formal rules that both the PR people and Wikipedians can live with. This has been debated at very great length and, as is the case with most controversial matters given WP's supermajority-pseudoconsensus decision-making system, the result has been a draw — status quo wins. Some people continue to try to play one handed Whack-a-Mole, others try to explain the de facto rules for PR people to the more open and honest ones among them, hoping all along that they don't become Whack-a-Mole victims for trying to play fair... Oh, well... Ya make your bed, then you lay in it... We're stuck with a decision-making system that can't make controversial decisions, and it would be a controversial decision to ever get rid of it... Carrite (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You're back to the "we can't prevent it so we have to accept it" line of thinking. I strongly disagree. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the alternative? "We can't prevent it so we have to be in a permanent state of war fighting a battle that can't be won"??? One thing is positive: we can't prevent it. Carrite (talk) 23:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Could we somehow find the "45 editors and admins"? If so, I'd strongly suggest they be desysopped and possibly blocked for undisclosed paid editing and violating WP:COI and WP:PROMOTION. Or is the claim about "admins" just an exaggeration? --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 20:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, could those that think "hidden advertisements" are illegal please give concrete sources and examples... because other than advertising being illegal to do on a CB radio I am unaware of any other media that bans "hidden" ads... or are you saying Coca Cola and Pepsi are getting away with violating US law everytime they have a product placement in a movie or tv show, or when the tv show's Psych and Pawn Stars have their characters go on and on about their Subway subs DURING the show (not a commercial), and many tv shows now do this about cars and other products, it's a "hidden" advertisement/endorsement by the definition being used here. I'm asking for clarification on US law (don't give a shit about British, Canadian, or Zimbabwean, and neither should Wikipedia !rules)Camelbinky (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Undisclosed product placement is most certainly illegal in the US, ever since the Payola scandal of the late 1950s. If only there were some place people could go to look things like this up. Mogism (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, could have done without the violation of wikipedia policies about biting and general bitchiness though, but thanks all the same. Sarcasm and assholeness is not needed in building an encyclopedia.Camelbinky (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And you could expand on that on how you think that the law applies to Wikipedia... I see nothing of how that applies to us.Camelbinky (talk) 23:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you really going to whine about "sarcasm and assholeness" right after you post "don't give a shit about British, Canadian, or Zimbabwean, and neither should Wikipedia !rules"? Resolute 23:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) If you make an ill-informed pronouncement on a subject you don't understand, don't be surprised when people treat you like someone who makes ill-informed pronouncements on a subject you don't understand. Even if you'd never once looked at the credits of one of the shows you mention and seen the "paid consideration by Coca-Cola" disclaimer, it would have taken you all of fifteen seconds to type "product placement" into the Wikipedia search bar, and find out the actual situation before you started making untrue claims. Your original post said nothing at all about how the law applies to Wikipedia - you were specifically talking about US television. Mogism (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Bringing the law into this is not that helpful here for practical purposes, since the FTC is simply not going to get involved in this, the Wikipedia (being a mere carrier) is not legally liable for anything, and there is zero chance of a successful suit or prosecution for fraud of any individual editors(s). To the extent that the law helps us frame our thinking about ethics, the law can be helpful, though.

    In that vein, suppose the Wikipedia was not just a carrier but that the WMF was actually legally responsible for our content -- as is the case with Brittanica, for instance. If we prominently displayed banners to the effect of "All our funds come from donations; we accept no promotional money, have no quid pro quo arrangements with donors, and accept no advertising" but then did in fact accept money for inserting promotional material into articles, we would be committing outright fraud, no question.

    But, the actual situation is actually quite a bit like that -- ethically, though not legally. I'm not sure what our various disclaimers say, but I'd guess that if a person were to claim that they were led to believe that "All our funds come from donations; we accept no promotional money, have no quid pro quo arrangements with donors, and accept no advertising" is the operative principle here, many people (and judges, if it came to that) might vouchsafe that that's a reasonable thing to believe, and we'd have a hard time pointing out materials that actively disabuse a reader of that notion.

    And yet, money does change hands here for the express purpose and effect of promoting commercial entities. The money doesn't go to the WMF but to private second parties. So legally the Wikipedia is doubly in the clear, because of that and because we're merely an information carrier. The effect is essentially the same, though.

    There are always new things, and the law moves slowly. The Wikipedia is a new thing. We're not really just a simple carrier in the same sense that the Postal Service is, or an ISP, or anything else. We're a new thing, and the law hasn't figured out what to do with us yet. For now, we're treated as a mere carrier. For now.

    I dunno, though. "I'll keep doing this until they make it actually illegal" is maybe not a good ethical principle to base one's actions on. Something like at least putting a small {Advertisment) disclaimer an articles that have been worked over for promotional purposes would be step in the right direction, I think. Herostratus (talk) 00:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) It is actually illegal now, and has been for many decades.
    The FTC website is the best place to go for this, but unfortunately is is closed due to the budget situation. They are very clear that "undisclosed advertising" is a "deceptive practice" which is illegal under 15 USC § 45. Advertising is broadly defined - it does not just include situations where a company pays a media outlet for space, and I remember one example they gave about "an online encyclopedia" so it definitely applies to Wikipedia where nobody pays the WMF for advertising space. When they first updated their *guidance* on this to include the internet, they emphasized that the same rules apply to the internet as to other media - undisclosed advertising is illegal. So for example, if somebody puts an ad in the NYTimes, it must be clear from the context, typeface, etc. that it is indeed an ad. So you'll see there an occasional full page ad where somebody want to give their opinion on a certain issue - and it will have a special border and something like "paid advertisement" at the top. On TV there are lots of "infomercials" with a special border and "paid advertisement" written on it. All you have to do is disclose it where readers/viewers will see it. If you are paying somebody (with any sort of payment, e.g. free samples) to put something on the internet that promotes your business, you must disclose it, same on the internet as anywhere else.
    See e.g. PR firm settles with FTC over alleged App Store astroturfing. (Don't take the "new rules in 2009" section too seriously - it's the same old rule, just with updated *guidance*)
    The situation with product placement in movies has been done openly for a long time, and I think that is what allowed it to go on for so long - you see a Mac in a movie, is that really an ad? The FTC has proposed a new rule on this. Note that disclosing product placement will be a new rule, prohibiting undisclosed ads on the internet is not new. As far as your TV examples, I can't say as we obviously watch different programs. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you about the ethics, but from a legal point of view, who does the FTC go after? The article you reference has "[a PR firm] has reached a settlement with the FTC over accusations that company employees posted positive reviews for the games the company was hired to promote". The FTC didn't go after the board where the reviews were posted, and similarly they wouldn't go after the Wikipedia (I think) but rather the PR firm. Legally speaking, that's no concern of ours, really. Herostratus (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    From a legal point of view the PR firms are breaking the law. You think "that's no concern of ours" - if they break the law on Wikipedia. It may be no concern of yours, but please allow the rest of us our right to be outraged and demand action. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Urgh, Wiki pr's showing up again.

    Face it, we even if we're not legally responsible for hidden advertising, we still don't want that in our system. We're not responsible for vandalism, but we don't want that either, do we? Even if we take out the legal stuff, we still have hidden advertising, which is an instant no-no.

    Ever since that archived ANI incident, I hoped that this company would fade into the background, not to be seen/heard from again, but it seems like they're expanding somewhat (I seriously hope that their claim of 45 editors and admins is a bluff). Not exactly a good idea.

    My view on paid editing is this: as long as you disclose it, use a secondary account, and follow the policies, I have no problem. If you don't disclose it, don't use a secondary account, or don't follow the policies, we should throw you out the door and release the hounds of the media (maybe not the media part, but whatever). Thekillerpenguin (talk) 06:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I previously noted on this page (now archived) that The Secretary of Wikimedia UK is to become the Chief Executive of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, the top PR body in the UK. Details here. Is it just me that thinks this is not right? Philafrenzy (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    While there can certainly be conflicts of interest in any position, I don't see a particular problem here. The PR business per se is not the enemy. Barnabypage (talk) 09:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No but you can't imagine Jimmy Wales being the head of the PR professional body in the U.S. and occupying his position here at the same time can you? Privy to the inner workings of two bodies that are so often in conflict. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We're speculating now, of course, but actually I could - if the step was from Wikimedia to the PR body. If somebody moved in the other direction it would be very questionable.
    There are two issues here, perhaps: whether it looks bad, and whether it actually is bad. I'm not at all convinced of the latter. I could be at least half-convinced of the former. Barnabypage (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure you really could... but it didn't happen quite like that, he ran for both jobs more or less simultaneously and there has to be a worry that the PR body only gave him the job because he had just, weeks before, got the Wikimedia job. The candidate had no previous experience in either PR or our projects. They effectively now have a man on the inside of the Wikimedia movement, though one who has made quite clear he will act ethically. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be over-estimating our importance to the CIPR. He had previously been chief exec of a couple of other trade bodies in different sectors and worked in policy communications - he looks like a pretty strong candidate for the CIPR job quite without the Wikimedia connection.
    In any case, it's not like the CIPR is a PR agency or that he will have direct input into Wikipedia content.
    I accept there are potential downsides to the connection, but there are potential upsides too, and I suspect that it won't really make a life-changing difference to either the Wiki project or the PR sector. Barnabypage (talk) 10:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, of all the PR industry bodies I've dealt with concerning Wikipedia and PR people, CIPR is by far the sanest and most sensible. In this particular individual case, I'd be happy to accept that Alastair has applicable experience in not crossing the streams - David Gerard (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as the WMUK situation is concerned, AGF or no AGF, I think that they are setting themselves up for a fall and really do not understand why they would take this risk. Especially given the various kerfuffles of the last year or so. Sure, it may never happen but why put yourselves on the spot? - Sitush (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It would seem conceivable that the WMF could require all admin users to (electronically) sign a notice formally agreeing to turn over all payments they receive for decisions affecting Wikipedia or article content as a condition of continued adminship, so that there is a potential for WMF to sue for that, plus punitive damages, from the offending admins. However, I have no idea to what degree demanding such contractual agreements would compromise WMF's ability to stand aside and say "it's a content decision by the community" if admins incur some kind of liability with their actions... Wnt (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Missingno.

    I was wondering about the Missingno. Wikipedia page. Pretty much everyone knows that it's available in Yellow, and I was wondering if I could use this as a source. Yes, I know it's Youtube, but, other people have done it, and he shows that there is no cheating device. I was in the #wikipedia-en IRC channel, and general consensus is that it can be trusted about as much as anything else on the internet, as shown in these quotes:

    "A well-known glitch being execute in a systematic walkthrough that is repeatable and verifiable with no concerns of forgery is no different than a photograph"

    "Basically, if two people take a picture of a building and one published it for free on flickr and one publishes it in Reuters, unless either photo is fake both are valid for their depictions, right?"

    Thanks, Scientific Alan 2(Click here to talk)(What have I done?) 22:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure Jimbo is a Pokemon expert... but if he is, I would certainly be very interested in hearing about it! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia editing numbers down in August

    I noticed this morning that the August 2013 editing numbers are now posted. After roughly a two year plateau in editor participation, things seem to have taken a big dive in August 2013. Total edits for August fell from to about 2.9 million from the 3.5 million of the previous August (more or less a 15% drop, rounding things off), while the number of Very Active Wikipedians (100+ edits in the month), fell by 8.3%. Not good. Carrite (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    In trying to figure this out I popped over to VisualEditor, which notes: "The beta [of VE] became the default editor for users logged-into the English-language Wikipedia in July 2013." Small sample size, sure, but this strikes me as potentially connected. Carrite (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What are the year-on-year numbers like? - David Gerard (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC) Sorry, evidently I can't read today - David Gerard (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Apology in full

    I am the individual who posted here formerly as Irate (talk · contribs) and Son of Paddy's Ego (talk · contribs). I am now going to edit for the good, I was a bloody fool when I posted here and apologise for the now-notorious Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irate and my previous behaviour in 2005, but I have changed. I appeal to be unbanned; I am no JarlaxleArtemis or Betacommand, and am now civil, and I was stupid on here. --Canadacrox (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=576012686"