Jump to content

User talk:Jimbo Wales

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 107.77.165.1 (talk) at 17:44, 30 August 2018 (→‎Wikipedia has resisted information warfare, but could it fight off a proper attack?: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    It's time to euthanize Wikipedia.

    In the early days of Wikipedia is was impressive even while lots of confused apes wandered about chaotically. Then it reached a mature phase and functioned in orderly fashion for some years. Now dishonest cowardly bullies sanctimoniously preach about civility while bullying their betters, bullying honest participants, bullying knowledgeable and erudite participants, bullying generous participants, and the bullies have now achieved dominance. I have done nearly 200,000 edits and created hundreds of articles, and I have done far more than 200,000 edits if you count edits while not logged in. I have edited Wikipedia daily since 2002.

    I propose:

    • that Wikipedia announce a date, perhaps six months from now, when it will cease allowing any edits at all; and
    • that Wikipedia abandon all pretense of opposing personal attacks or condoning civility, since it is now only a pretense at best, and is ceasing to be a successful pretense. People will laugh at official avowals of wanting civility or even of wanting honesty. This abandonment should be done now. Today. With an accompanying explicit announcement that the Wiki is on its death bed and that euthanasia is the best option in this case.

    Wikipedia will be a thing of the past very soon. A very impressive museum.

    Maybe the culture will change so that it can be reincarnated some day. Or maybe something better will succeed it in the future. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Gosh, what happened?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AN#Suppression or courtesy blanking of an AfD page containing libelous material - Whatever this is, is what happened. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's worth remembering that Michael is one of the most prolific members of the community who has been around for years. Whatever this is all about - I had missed the entire controversy until today - it's worth understanding. I think it fairly obvious that Michael isn't seriously suggesting shutting the project down - he's upset and venting. When things have calmed down, it's really worthwhile to consider what sequence of events led to this disruption and to also recognize that longstanding trusted and valued community members who are feeling this hurt and upset may actually have a point worth hearing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So Jimbo, have you now had a chance to look at the train of events? What do you make of it, and what would you like to feed back to Michael? Things do appear to be getting a little heated on his talk page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would rather have Wikipedia kept online. So far, it has inconvenienced:
    ...because Wikipedia has exposed their actions as immoral, illegal, illogical or pseudo-scientific, and that attempts by these groups to edit articles are prevented by users enforcing anti-POV policies. It's also the reason why it's banned in countries that want to maintain strict control of their populations. CommanderOzEvolved (talk) (contribs) 07:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    CommanderOzEvolved—I would say that the above is more sanctimoniousness. Bus stop (talk) 08:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Jimbo is now in full-blown "suppressing dissent" mode, as an examination of the edit history of this page shows. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Bus stop Yeah I went overboard with this one, but hey. At least I like it Wikipedia for its impact. CommanderOzEvolved (talk) (contribs) 08:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd just like to mention to any watchers of this page who might have faced issues which have inspired them to come here and make similar complaints, that community health is an issue which is addressed on Wikipedia here and on Wikimedia at large here. The former of the two, the Wikipedia project page has been inactive since May and it's talk page since July and could probably use Your* help. The Wikimedia initiative is benefiting from a recent banner designed to kick-start new initiatives and is quite hot at the moment. The aforementioned pages contain links and are far from being the only pages on Wikipedia, which deal with this subject. In short: community health is not something which is overlooked by either editors or organizers of this project and involvement in community health initiatives may be particularly rewarding to people who believe that their time here as an editor has been made in any way uncomfortable for having encountered bullying or anti-social behavior.

    *Anyone and everyone Edaham (talk) 08:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's worth remembering that Michael is one of the most prolific members of the community who has been around for years. Maybe MH is due some respect for being around so long and contributing so much, but you know what? So is Cullen. So are a lot of other editors. The fact that MH signed up first, or makes more bot-assisted or minor edits is really immaterial to how much respect they deserve relative to other editors. You know what's not immaterial to that? the number of disruptive ANI threads they've started. The number of editors they've alienated with their poor attitude. MH doesn't really measure up too well in those two regards, but by all means: ignore all that because he's been fiddling with redirects and fixing grammar for ten years.
    I would also point out that the "personal attack" which was removed from this page was, quite obviously, anything but. It was arguably somewhat uncivil (as it didn't bother to explain the logic behind it, only present a conclusion as a given), but to call it insulting is completely ignorant. "You are pursuing a crank agenda" and "you are a crank" mean two entirely different things, and it's rude and disrespectful not to give someone like Cullen the benefit of the doubt by asking them to explain before just jumping to the worst conclusion and calling it a personal attack. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    In case anyone has forgotten, the Michael Hardy case is an example of Arbcom flat out lying (saying that "a number of other community members chose to involve themselves in this dispute and/or commented extensively during the events leading up to the case... Softlavender in particular [has] made comments that may have been good-faith expressions of concern, but were critical of Hardy in ways that did not clarify the situation or deescalate the dispute."[1]) when Softlavender's only involvement was offering evidence in the Arbcom case.[2])

    Arbcom followed up on this blatant lie (yes, there will be those who object to me calling a lie a lie, but presenting evidence during an Arbcom case is not "commenting extensively during the events leading up to the case". That's a lie.) by attempting to sanction Softlavender and others[3].

    They relented when there was a shitstorm of protest ("Switching to oppose by request of the community. Everyone thinks this is outrageous and useless..."), but some of them did so with snarky comments like "I remain very disappointed in many of the community members who participated in escalating this dispute, and unimpressed that almost no one involved... seems to have changed their position, reconsidered their behavior, or demonstrated self-awareness of their own contributions to the problem" -- totally ignoring fact that multiple editors had just told them that their "escalating this dispute" claim was factually incorrect.

    As I have done several time before, again I call upon Arbcom to make it clear that anyone can offer evidence in an Arbcom case without being sanctioned simply for presenting evidence that some arbcom members don't want to hear. See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 35#I believe that I am owed an apology. for details. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Getting back to the topic at hand, Michael Hardy has been "blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for namecalling and doubling down on personal attacks against six named editors",[4] and when he continued the personal attacks on his talk page,[5] his talk page access was revoked.[6] --Guy Macon (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It worries me that he is behaving as if he is invested in the topic or has some personal relationship with the individuals called out in the AfD. Guy (Help!) 17:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The underlying question

    This concerns Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancestral health. AfD pages are not indexed so should not pollute Google searches, but regardless, the bar to courtesy blanking is pretty low for BLP issues.

    However, this is not obviously a BLP issue. Michael Hardy appears to have some kind of emotional investment inthe subject, he considered Orangemike's characterisation of the Journal of Evolution and Health as unrecognised to be outrageous. Actually it was pretty accurate. The journal published its first issue in 2013, its second in 2017, so at the time of the AfD it had one issue only, which contained the cited paper. It had then and as far as I can tell has now no entry in the usual indexes, no impact factor, and is not listed in any of the directories that indicate reliability.

    Michael Hardy appears to think that it is libellous and outrageous to suggest that this journal was set up by advocates of this particular fad diet in order to promote it. Whether or not that is true, it is, I suggest, a reaonsable interpretation of the facts. A random sample of articles found at least one member of the editorial board as author or co-author on every one. In my experience, that is a massive red flag for a crank journal. I have assessed and purged references to hundreds of these over time, most are predatory.

    He also appears to believe that it is libellous and outrageous to assert that advocates of this fad diet are using discipline-specific jargon in order to give an air of legitimacy to what is implicitly a pseudoscientific study. Again, regardless of the merits of the claim, it a not unreasonable inference in context. A group of people combine to publish a journal which has Vol. 1 Iss 1 and then lies dormant, using sciencey-sounding language to advocate something that is unquestionably commercially lucrative but which does not appear to have significant academic support. That is a giant red flag, and if it was the Journal of Reiki and Health or the Journal of Homeopathy and Health I venture to suggest that MH might well feel less inclined to die on this particular hill.

    So the comments on the AfD are not actionable, and are defensible, but someone doesn't like them and it sounds very much as if they are in touch with MH complaining about it.

    My personal preference is to courtesy blank any AfD where an editor in good standing asks nicely. If this had come in via OTRS when I did that, I'd probably have done the same. Does anyone have any good reason why we should not do that here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs) 15:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I say blank it, but only after the current discussion dies down and the block expires. Right now a lot of us are looking at the AfD to evaluate the claims of a BLP violation. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the good reasons not to blank are all the reasons that JzG already noted, and the unanimous consensus among 13 admins and other experienced editors at AN that it should not be blanked. Acceding to a ridiculous whim after a barrage of personal attacks that resulted not only in a block but a TP revocation as well is only going to make things worse. Softlavender (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't need a lot of a reason to blank an AfD, once the debate is done the utility o the page is over, and the content remains in the history of anyone cares. The entrenched views on display here are inexplicable to me given the trivial nature of the content itself. This stinks of an off-wiki dispute of some sort. Guy (Help!) 16:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Right back at ya. The trivial (and off-article-space) nature of the content itself means there is utterly no reason to blank it. There is an overwhelming unanimous consensus not to blank it, so to blank it would be against consensus. As is, the person insisting on blanking has been blocked and is having his mop newly questioned, especially following the ArbCom reprimand he received for exactly the kind of odd and bullying behavior he is currently exhibiting. Softlavender (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that questions about MH's suitability as an admin are not, in fact, new. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: Can anyone think up a good reason not to blank the AfD? I'm just saying, if there's a mediocre reason to blank (fulfilling a request from a longstanding editor) and no appreciable reason not to do so, then the obvious course of action is to blank it.
    I don't consider this a rhetorical question. I'm honestly asking. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Reasons for courtesy blanking:
    1. Someone somewhere finds a debate page upsetting.
    2. Er....
    3. That's it.
    Well, not quite, but not far off. The bar to courtesy blanking if any living person finds a page offensive or belittling is very low, because WP:NOTEVIL.
    I have no clue why MH is so angry about this, equally I have no clue why people are so keen to ensure that the visibility of this AfD is maximised. Guy (Help!) 17:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy, I've moved your comment to what seemed the more appropriate place and altered the indenting. Feel free to revert me if I was in error.
    I think you've described my position fairly well, assuming that "blanking" refers to actually blanking the page, and not revdelling all edits to it or deleting the page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • While the article may not be based on good sources, we should look beyond that and take all the evidence on this whole issue seriously. We can read here:

    "...the Tsimane, a forager-horticulturalist population of the Bolivian Amazon with few coronary artery disease risk factors, have the lowest reported levels of coronary artery disease of any population recorded to date."

    This raises questions about the way research is conducted on health and nutrition. It seems that too much weight is put on research involving Western-style diets, without questioning whether all Western-style diets may actually cause heart disease. The result on the Tsimane wasn't actually the first such result, we can read here:
    "Williams and Jack Davies had shown clinically and pathologically that coronary heart disease was almost non-existent among the African population in Uganda, although Hugh Trowell had reported a single case of coronary heart disease in an African judge. In the Asian community of Uganda, on the other hand, coronary heart disease was extremely common, accounting for almost half of the male deaths in Kampala in 1956–1958."
    So, the data about diets that cause orders of magnitude less arterial plaque on which you can thrive, is out there. It existed already in the 1950s and it has been replicated recently. However, we prefer to ignore that data and do research that allows us to eat a diet similar to what we eat already that will reduce adverse health effects, take e.g. the Mediterranean diet. But compared to a diet that leads to almost zero rates of cardiovascular disease, the Mediterranean diet is not at all healthy.
    So, while Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, there should still be plenty of room to write a good article about this subject, as there is evidence for the general claims made, published in reliable journals. Count Iblis (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no wish to relitigate that question here (though the inability of the proponents to sustain a self-published journal rather suggests you may be wrong). The question is purely about courtesy blankign a page that implicitly identifies living people in a less than flattering context. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also do not oppose blanking (just in case I am included in the 13). My take from the AfD is one has to do not insignificant research to even begin to understand Hardy's complaint (the "critical comments", shall we say, seem too generalized for something like "oversight" action, although there is talk of "scam", which it's not now clear where that first came up (edit summary?). Initially, I was thinking targeted redaction but that is rather too pointed on single editors' generalized comments. At any rate, as suggested, there is no need to prove or even claim something like "libel" for a courtesy blanking. I also think that discussion at AN got a bit out-of-hand with reference to past 'bad acts' of Hardy (per CIVIL and NPA - bringing up past bad acts, but then again, it rather started off sidetracked with "libel") -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • A sample of reasons not to blank: the page contains no BLP violations or other inappropriate material that needs blanking; AfDs are archived because they're a record of prior consensus and shouldn't be obscured without grounds; this particular AfD was also cited in an arbcom case; several "editors in good standing" have already explicitly opposed it; there are strong indications that the request is motivated by, if not a COI, then a fringe POV; MH has already gotten away with far too much disruptive and frankly bizarre behaviour because he is a "longstanding editor". – Joe (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So we should retain a page that contains insinuations about readily identifiable living people, in order to punish MH for being a dick? This really isn't about him. At all. Guy (Help!) 17:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Joe, I probably should have been more clear: I was asking for reasons to not blank. What you've provided here are mostly arguments against the previously described reason for blanking. Don't get me wrong, these are good arguments. But they undermine reasons to blank: they don't provide a reason not to blank. To express myself better, let me ask: What do you think the downside would be to blanking? How would it hurt the project? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Really, there isn't much of a downside. Done. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And reverted. Oh, well, I tried. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, if someone asked me "do you see any reason in the AfD that it should be blanked", my answer would be no. But I also don't see any particular reason to deny courtesy blanking in this case. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ↑ This exactly. Courtesy blanking should follow a rational basis test, not strict scrutiny. What matters is that someone has identified a potential problem. I would like to know the basis for this, two years after the event. I would absolutely support "X has contacted me and asked for courtesy blanking of this page" as a rationale for an AfD debate, but MH's over the top reaction has not helped. Guy (Help!) 19:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "This really isn't about him" – of course it is. We're only engaged in this colossal waste of time because he has apparently carried this grudge for two years while the rest of us forgot about that AfD. If merely stating a reasonable and relevant opinion about a living person is cause for blanking, you better get cracking on every AfD of a BLP there's ever been.
    And to clarify, what I was trying to say above is that we shouldn't accommodate groundless, POV-motivated requests to censor discussions from disruptive editors just because they're old hands. Especially not when other editors object. It hurts the project's integrity, may cause a chilling effect on future discussions, and we wouldn't even be considering it if MH wasn't an admin with an old account. – Joe (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree fully with your first paragraph, and your second contains one of the reasons I was asking for, thank you. I've manually reverted your revert because your edit summary seemed to reply only to the specific reason Sarek gave, and while I won't edit war over it, I will hope you won't, either (but I will, neither, be surprised if someone else reverts me). Nevermind: I see you've already decided it's worth edit warring over.
    So it seems to me that we should weigh the benefit of extending a courtesy to a longtime editor with the drawback of possible giving off a harmful impression to newer editors.
    I, for one, would be happy to make an additional statement outlining my support for blanking, my past interactions with MH (entirely negative), as well as my estimation of the value of their request ("childish demand" would be more accurate), and a clear statement that I would extend the same courtesy to any editor who is not indeffed or community banned right there on the page to offset any perception of favoritism. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe restoring the stable version agreed upon in an WP:AN thread is "edit warring" any more than your revert was. However you interpreted my edit summary, it seems extremely arrogant to impose your personal judgement of the situation over that of the half a dozen editors who participated there.
    I agree entirely with the trade-off you mention: MH's behaviour in the AfD in question already drove off one new editor (the very same person he is now accusing of slander), and I'd opt for not rubbing salt in that wound, not rewarding his bullying with "courtesies". – Joe (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe restoring the stable version agreed upon in an WP:AN thread is "edit warring" any more than your revert was. You've reverted twice now, which meets the definition of "edit warring". Whether it should be responded to with sanctions is a different question, one I'm inclined to answer "no" simply because I don't care enough about this subject.
    Which leaves another question: Why do you?
    I might point out that there are (quite obviously) people who agree with Michael Hardy and support him. Look at Jimbo's response to Cullen's comment, described above. Those people will, to some extent, agree with his complaints about being bullied and discriminated against. So whether we blank the page or not, we're giving the impression that we encourage favoritism and reward bad behavior, just to a different group. I've offered to do something that could -along with the blanking- offset that. I've yet to see anything coming from the "don't blank" side of this argument that even approaches an attempt to work things out, instead of winning the debate. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The "not rewarding his bullying" above caught my eye. When someone behaves badly, the Right Thing To Do is to act exactly as if they hadn't. We should not be more inclined or less inclined to courtesy blank because of Hardy's behavior. And blanking a year-old page when even one editor thinks it is a BLP violation is standard (and in this case it is more than one editor). --Guy Macon (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • "Censorship"? For goodness sake, that's just ratcheting up. In no way is courtesy blanking upon request censorship. It is also unseemly to not extend a courtesy, because one does not think a particular editor deserves a courtesy (courtesy is trying to be better, is it not). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it? "The suppression of speech... on the basis that such material is considered objectionable" is our definition of censorship, but feel free to pretend I wrote "redact" instead.
    To answer Mjolnir's question: I care because of the shameful double standard. A new editor is driven off the project by an "established" one, and we're now seriously considering obscuring the record of that as a courtesy to the latter? MH's response to failing to gain consensus at AN was to repeatedly attack the other editors involved and whine to his old pal Jimbo... so we let him have his way? – Joe (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you are looking at this in fundamentally the wrong way. However much of a dick MH might have been, that is never a reason to refuse to courtesy blank a debate that makes insinuations about somebody else. A righteous concern raised in the wrong way is still a righteous concern. I don't give a monkeys about MH or hos motley band of boosters and knockers, but I do care that someone has, at some point, raised a concern about rhetorical exuberance concerning easily identifiable living individuals who have no obvious role in the fight. And so should you. It's about showing class. Leave it to Commons to do the worst thing possible just because it's legally allowed, here at Wikipedia we should aspire to better. Guy (Help!) 19:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea why you just mentioned redact. At any rate, a blank does not suppress any speech, it just files it in a different form. And the idea of limited courtesy is not just to the editor, it's to the one(s) whose professional or personal reputation it "may" effect. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I don't know what speech you think is being suppressed. Everything i nthe AfD has already been said, and can still be seen after a blanking.
    To answer Mjolnir's question: I care because of the shameful double standard. What double standard? Is M. A. Bruhn being denied a courtesy blanking?
    MH's response to failing to gain consensus at AN was to repeatedly attack the other editors involved and whine to his old pal Jimbo... so we let him have his way? MH has been blocked, and had their TP access removed. In addition, according to comments by the last arbcom (which -it should be noted- seemed to be eager to blame anyone but MH for all the shit he stirred up), this incident itself creates grounds to seriously consider desysopping him involuntarily. Plus, I'm of the opinion that his outlook in a possible site ban discussion would not be so hot. Sure, Jimbo might show up and rally some support, but the community at large seems to be mostly fed up with his crap by this point.
    It's hardly fair for you to suggest that a blanking represents us kowtowing to MH, or letting them get their way from throwing a fit. It seems more like us being nice even when we don't have to be. It also seems to me to be a good way to reduce MH's avenues for stirring up more shit once their block expires. You know: we do it not because he deserves it, but just to shut him the hell up about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) It's a synonym for censor. And yes – "may" in massive air quotes. Guy, above, you yourself describe the comments you have just blanked as "not [an] unreasonable inference in context", "not actionable" and "defensible". Yet you have overridden the opinions of a half dozen plus of your fellow editors and removed them anyway. Why? Because we should act on any request to courtesy blank? Even when the person making the request has not "asked nicely" and patently has an ulterior motive? – Joe (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd just like to jump in here to give my view of the philosophical questions you raise here, Joe. Should we act on any request to courtesy blank? No, not any - but we can and should be very liberal about it. A courtesy blank is a very good tool to do the right thing by a person who some may perceive have been treated less than ideally. And I don't see any reason for the behavior of the person making the request to come into it very much at all. Wikipedia is not the place to punish people or to act out grudges.
    Let me say this more clearly by presenting it as a hypothetical that I do NOT think is a description of the current situation. Let's imagine that a very very annoying person asks in a really rude and wrong way to courtesy blank something that is about a third person (a BLP subject), and it is obvious that the very very annoying person has some ulterior motive related to internal Wikipedia disputes. In such a case I think the ONLY question to consider is the nature of the content to be blanked, and the dignity of that third person. And the analysis should absolutely not be "is this illegal" but a much much lower threshold of something like "is this something that could potentially cause hurt" and we should balance that - but not against "is there any conceivable possible reason why a blank would hinder our work in some tiny way in the future" but "is there an absolutely overwhelmingly compelling reason to keep it".
    Why do I take this approach? Because this is a wiki. We don't have to keep absolutely everything, nor should we keep absolutely everything.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What's a synonym for "censor", "suppress" or "redact"? At any rate, it does not matter, no speech is being suppressed or censored - that "censor" claim is both wrong and ratcheting up. "May" is quoting the courtesy blanking guide, not air quotes (whatever those are). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPants: It certainly is kowtowing. When his short block expires, his tantrum has had the effect he wanted. I completely agree with you that a desysop and ban is in order but I wouldn't put money on it actually happening with the friends he has. In which case I hope you'll still be happy that you tried so hard to hide his dirty laundry for him. – Joe (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In which case I hope you'll still be happy that you tried so hard to hide his dirty laundry for him. In case you didn't look at my edit before you reverted it; I included a link directing readers to exactly where they could find this "dirty laundry", so your comment here and your comments above about "censorship" reek of hyperbolic falsehood.
    And yes: I would rather look back on my actions and say "Hmm, being courteous actually ended up biting me in the ass this time," than to look back and say "Ha! Serves that immature little lunatic charlatan right that the discussion never got blanked." I know it may be hard to believe, but I actually do think that MH's history of contributions to this site has earned them at least a little courtesy, even if it's courtesy in being shown the door. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So we have to hide content that may violate BLP, but hiding it doesn't actually hide it, it helps people find it? What funhouse mirror-world have I stepped into? – Joe (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Have to?" No. But should we take an action that doesn't really change anything but could very well stuff a sock in the piehole of a disruptive editor whom you think is immune to a community ban and give him one less thing to bitch about? Yup. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't you both think this should be discussed and decided elsewhere? ---Sluzzelin talk 20:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think that this should be discussed and decided elsewhere. Michael Hardy posted his complaint here, not elsewhere. And while it is true that Hardy is behaving very poorly indeed, He feels that there is a BLP violation, and in general we courtesy blank 2-year-old deletion discussions if anyone thinks they contain a BLP violation -- we don't argue with them, we don't require an RfC on the issue, and we don't revert when an uninvolved veteran editor blanks the page for containing a BLP violation. So Hardy, no matter how annoying he happens to be, was right to appeal to Jimbo. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    All's well that ends well. Meanwhile, up here in Canada we stood up for Mexico to keep them from being thrown under the bus re: NAFTA "negotiations", only to see Skull and Boner, Mnuchin, recruit Mexico into joining his skinny ass to apply the Boners' so typical as to be boring "double cross" tool (think GHW greenlighting Saddam's invasion of Iraq) ...thereby putting 500,000 Canadian jobs in jeopardy ...point being, Michael Hardy????? Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Michael. With the way Wikipedia is going, the project is doomed anyway. Good editors are bullied out, bad ones are catered to, the signpost and wiki projects are dead. So is RFA. Just put it down. 170.121.246.249 (talk) 21:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a petty thing that has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. If someone wants to sooth him and hide it, knock yourself out but don't dress it up as anything more than a small gesture of coddling and somewhat inappropriate (the community found no obvious BLP violation at ANI; the given reason is without merit). But really, fuhgedaboudit. Jytdog (talk) 00:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The Signpost: 30 August 2018

    * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia has resisted information warfare, but could it fight off a proper attack?

    Wikipedia has resisted information warfare, but could it fight off a proper attack?, in the New Statesman. Jimmy - any comment?

    Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • WP already in POV-warfare versus propaganda: I'll leave space for Jimbo to answer above, but that report presented some valid concerns. However, at the typical editor level, WP is already handling POV-warfare and is very tedious to update, due to numerous squabbles about format, wp:UNDUE weight, wp:BLPVIO, wp:DE, wp:3RR, wp:Canvas, "{{cn}}" citation needed, or even sources demanded within talk-pages, etc. Hence, it is actually quite difficult to substantially change major Wikipedia pages. I think the only real danger would be admins who scare editors on one side of a debate to back-off, using veiled threats of blocks or topic-bans, whereby articles can be more quickly slanted without the typical delays over consensus-debates. Perhaps evil forces had already devised the wp:Topic ban process, years ago, in a long-term strategy to slant Wikipedia by thwarting experts who tried to resist balderdash added into pages. Anyway it certainly has worked to severely slant some pages. So, perhaps the main solution would be to have term-limits for admins, to easily desysop when suspected by the larger community, without having to somehow prove various admins are "sleeper spies" for corporate or international interests who wish to spread their own propaganda. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:36, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Trolls from Olgino have made several appearances here which I've seen (as in: I've seen IP addresses geolocated to Olgino being used to to say incendiary things about American politics, with a decidedly right-wing slant, often in a way that makes it clear they are the same person as a different, more prolific IP that belonged to some sort of proxy in Europe or America). I'm quite sure there are more which I haven't seen. Plus there has been -for the past 1-2 years- a phenomenon whereby accounts that were registered, used and seemingly abandoned a decade ago suddenly show back up and start editing, and wouldn't you know it: they all say the same sorts of things the troll say. Almost as if those accounts were being bought, sold and traded.
    In response to this piece, I would suggest that it's at least possible that WP has been the target of a concerted attack for some time, and that we're just not as aware of it due to the decentralized nature of the project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Or because it's been BAU since forever? I mean, seriously, anyone who watches articles on quackery, conspiracy theories, antivax bollocks, scams like the e-cat and so on will have toruble distinguishing these trolls from the normal everyday ones. Guy (Help!) 12:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    BAU? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Business as usual" if I am not mistaken? PackMecEng (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG: sorry to tell you, but the "weaponized" anti-vaxers are largely from St. Petersburg. How many more of our perennial BAU controversies are Russian active measures? 107.77.165.1 (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not similar to an organization like NATO, the arms race between hackers and such organization is not relevant to Wikipedia's cyber security. It's a bit analogous to the fact that insects do fine with only an innate immune system, as explained here. Count Iblis (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment for Russian Wikinews

    Jimmy, there we interviewed wikimedians from different countries and continents in Russian Wikinews: 1, 2, 3, 4.

    There wikimedians answer the question, which they are usually asked by people who are far from our movement: "Why on Earth you are spending your time, contributing to Wikipedia? Why do you think it's worth your time?"

    Today we are preparing the last part of the series of articles. We will be grateful if you can answer too.

    We kindly request you to shoot my way a few sentences by 00:00 UTC. Sorry for such a short notice. We'll be glad to include your words as well. --sasha (krassotkin) 13:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I personally support this joint effort of Bashkir Wikimedians' leader Rustam Nuryev & Sasha Krassotkin of Russian Wikinews by translating all non-Russian language responses.--Frhdkazan (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I also ask you to answer. --Рөстәм Нурыев (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    How/whether? to expand "history" section of Skull and Bones

    Jimbo, is there a way, without being deleted under the "conspiracy theory" taboo, to expand or fork the Skull and Bones article to include its long history...150 years..of having members who have played substantial roles in engineering wars...in numbers far beyond statistical probabilities (they only recruit 15 members per year world wide) We have a large [7] "history" section for Freemasons and a short [8] section for Skull and Bones. There is ample RS reporting that since it inception, members of the "society" have played substantial roles in engineering wars, e.g. in this [9] Guardian report, Prescott Bush, Averill Harriman, and Knight Wooley were all members of the society. Then the founder, William Russell, is RS reported to have financed John Brown's insurrection and established the Republican Party and financed Lincoln's candidacy, all 3 of which were major aspects of the lead up to the civil war. Then we have Harriman and William and McGeorge Bundy pushing for the assassination of a S. Vietnamese president and coaching Johnson all of which maximized US involvement in the Vietnam war. Not to mention GHW's double cross of Saddam by greenlighting his invasion of Kuwait and George W.'s "Iraq has WMDs" trick for invading Iraq and John Kerry's blowing up the Ukraine.

    I would gladly write such a new article, e.g. "History of Skull and Bones Members involvement in USA wars" if I thought it had any chance at all of not being quickly deleted as "conspiracy theory". What do you think? Is it a historical account worth having in the Encyclopedia assuming, as I say, there are Reliable Sources backing up all content? Nocturnalnow (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not sure how such a thing would be possible without substantial WP:SYNTH unless reliable sources tie the school club to the execution of wars explicitly. Simonm223 (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    A note though that your Guardian source is not compelling; all it mentions is that three generations of the Bush family were in the same student club. It makes no mention of that club having any involvement in the starting of wars. Simonm223 (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, are you trying to deny that Shrub was a paid-up member of the Illuminati (Military Industrial Complex branch)? Guy (Help!) 16:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Naw. I'm just dubious that his involvement in the Military Industrial Complex has anything to do with his hereditary membership for a Yale student club for rich assholes. Simonm223 (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=857274822"