User talk:Jimbo Wales

Harassment site on sh.wiki

Hi Jimbo, I am sorry to take your precious time. I would like just to ask you is that normal for Wikipedia to have such offensive article [1][2] madding "Humor" abuses, offences, and mockery about Macedonians and the stateRepublic of Macedonia, and not only offending Macedonians but Greeks, as well. Can someone, please, delete or remove that harassment site. Can anyone ban creators of that site. Thanks! Regards! 77.234.44.147 (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• The IP raises an excellent point. This is a "humorous" article in Wikipedia space on the Serbo-Croat Wikipedia, which unless I've missed some incredibly subtle humour (unlikely, knowing the relationship between the countries) is basically an insulting screed against Macedonia and Macedonians. Apparently the country only exists "because of a conspiracy between the United Nations in cooperation with the Wikimedia Foundation", the inhabitants are mostly overweight, and their most famous athlete is a dog. The article is unsurprisingly regularly vandalised, but is restored and protected by sh.wiki admins. Someone with the appropriate permissions needs to get this gone, and have a wor with the admins involved. Black Kite (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I agree and I would also add here national symbol insults involved, as on national coat of arms (Greek one), national flag (modified war Japanese flag), national anthem (allegedly "bread and chutney"), national motto(allegedly "killing"!!??), name o the people ("Janevistanians"), than capital of the state (allegedly Greek city of Thessaloniki), etc. For example national macedonian motto contain a threat "You will be killed",and so on. Libertarian Macedonian (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

So Macedonian are able to produce and export only chutney, and nothing else as "National anthem "Bread and chutney" suggests Macedonian were good only for making paper and potato(s)? All Janevistanians (Macedonians) were copies of Igor Janev?? Pollution in Macedonian city of Delcevo was that bad, so I.J. is nervous? Japanese flag suggesting Japanese fighting dogs? Or, between the lines of translation, all Macedonians were "Dogs of the war"??77.234.45.153 (talk) 12:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I can't read any of it and for some reason Google Translate appears down from here at the moment. So I can only comment on the principle, which is really all the matters here. There is no reason for any offensive humor to exist in any place on any Wikimedia projects at any time. This is always true, but especially true in areas and places that have to to with insults on national cultures in parts of the world where sensitivities due to past and recent conflict is high.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The Wikilink is sh:User:Orijentolog/Janevistan; it's a user's private subpage. When you think about the magnitude of abuses by administrators on many of the small wikis who block would-be editors and impose bias in article space, I think that it would be absolutely a terrible precedent to go after the Serbo-Croatian Wiki because they don't censor user pages according to American standards of political correctness. Their welcome message to me as a user says that you can post on some of their forums in English, and you are free to mount the bully pulpit if you want, but please, don't go beyond that. Wnt (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Wnt, as usual on this and similar issues, you are wrong. Wikipedia need not tolerate nasty behavior, ever. "American standards of political correctness" is a silly thing to say in this context. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, worldwide. The values of Wikipedia are universal.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

In may opinion, Wikipedia should apply some universally accepted standards. Insults on national symbols are prohibited in every state in the world and in the International Law. At least Wiki rules should apply [3]. Furthermore, there were threats such as "You will be killed" (Geslo: "Bićeš ubijen!")that were absolutely unacceptable. I should also mention that after protest of Macedonian administrator [4]] Ehrlich91, that hate speach was clearly insult to the all Macedonians, nothing happened. Regards. Libertarian Macedonian (talk) 23:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

"Insults on national symbols are prohibited in every state in the world and in the international law" - this is 100% false and 100% irrelevant.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Jimmy, whatever you decide is fine with me. If this admins. on sh.wiki think that Macedonians are fat and stupid or primitive its ok. Thank you for your precious time. Forgive me for any inconvenience. Best wishes!Libertarian Macedonian (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I thought that the burning or tearing or damaging of the USA flag is punishable by US the law, according to the US Constitution. Libertarian Macedonian (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Nope. Burning is considered the appropriate mechanism for disposal of old and damaged flags. The Boy Scouts of America burn more flags than all the Muslims in the world combined. Guy (Help!) 00:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Flag desecration in the United States was formerly banned by unconstitutional legislation. The Supreme Court has upheld not merely the physical act of burning a flag but the right to deface and destroy it as an expression of personal contempt or for any other reason. This wise ruling has, incidentally, caused flag desecration to go from being frequent national news to something that is almost unheard of, because without the prosecutions, people simply don't care - and if they don't care, there is little reason to bother. Wnt (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

As for the Flag of Vergina Sun /Alexander the Grate Flag (in "Janevistan" presented under label: "Coat of Arms", as a provocation to Macedonians), it should be remembered that Greece because of that Flag started the catastrophic Trade War against Macedonia in 1994 and 1995, and reported that as "flagrant violation of the international law" to the UN Security Council. During that painful period for Macedonia, as a result of the trade blockade and sanctions introduced by Greece state, salaries and wages in Macedonia were fallen to the level of less than 50 dollars per month! Relations between the to state were than closest to the war, and relations didn't normalize until Macedonia had accepted to change its Flag (Flag of Vergina Sun). Now, sh.wikipedia editors, made mockery for the period of deepest economic crises in Macedonian history, by deliberately putting Vergina Sun Flag in the place "Coat of Arms" of Macedonia/Janevistan! Such accusations of stealing national symbols from other states, are taken very seriously both in Macedonia and in Greece. Further, in the text you may found that Macedonian were constantly stealing other people symbols (presented there in the oppositional form: "neighbors had stolen Macedonian symbols") and Macedonian state always "destroyed" other cultures, operating on principle (according to sh.wiki editors): "Demolish and bury it" (sh."sruši i zakopaj")! Thanks!5.45.62.149 (talk) 11:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Plus, there is no science in Macedonia (sh. "Istorijska nauka makedonologija je danas zvanično poznata i kao arheologija.") The only science in the country is digging in the past!? So the conclusion for reader should be that, according to SH., there is/was no science or scientists in the Republic of Macedonia, except experts for rewriting and falsifying history!?

5.45.62.166 (talk) 05:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Or this "varvarina koji su hteli da zatru sve makedonsko, pa su joj pokrali jezik, ime, nacionalne simbole i svetske velikane", basically all Macedonian culture was stolen by Barbarians, so there is no now any Culture at all!?5.45.62.166 (talk) 05:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo was 100% correct when stating that national symbols were not protected by the International Law ("Insults on national symbols are prohibited in every state in the world and in the international law" - this is 100% false). Also, State names cannot be the subject of forgery or theft (stealing), and states cannot be deprived from their names or externally (and internally) imposed on them, and state name as such couldn’t affect the different historical interpretation. States do not have exclusive rights over the state names, and couldn’t be subject to the imposition of negotiations on that type of matters , even by the UN. What was fanny to me in the “Janevistan”, but probably not to the Macedonians, was that allegedly leading ideologist teaches Macedonians that “Macedonian world” is “Good” one and surrounded by Evil or “non-Macedonian world”, but that “Evil” (or non-Macedonians) must exist beside Macedonians (“Good”) because other vise Macedonians wouldn’t be able (presumably as higher beings) to define their identity or themselves! According to sh. Editors, creator of this type of Racist ideology was Igor Janev (and that is obviously not only untruth, but compete creation of sh. Editors in attempt to humiliate people in Macedonia and describe Igor Janev as a Nazi nationalist/Fascist). Actually the message was suppose to be (understood) in satiric opposite modus, aiming to say that the only evil people in the World, with Nazi ideology, were Macedonians. Well, seems to me sh.editors miss the point there and actually described themselves as such nationalists.5.45.62.166 (talk) 08:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Still, US is well-known for large percentage of cases involving personal offences. But to say: country only exists "because of a conspiracy between the United Nations in cooperation with the Wikimedia Foundation" is a more serious situation. At least in Balkan countries you may not go with these defamations, unless you are prepared to pay a large amount of money. Libertarian Macedonian (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, I frankly don't see much meaning in your statement that "Wikipedia need not ever tolerate nasty behavior." There are a wide range of things that go on here that can be considered "nasty", but what do you take action against? I would suggest that admins on small wikis who ban people without explanation or for writing contrary to the Official POV would be far "nastier" than someone who has some rude national humor on a user page. I think that Polish jokes and Russian reversals and even more mean-spirited efforts like Life of Brian or the 'fatface' actors in Austin Powers have some legitimate place in culture. When you act to say that small wikis must never permit users to transgress your boundaries of politeness while failing to take such invasive action where substantive article content bias issues are concerned, you send a powerful message that Wikipedia is an entertainment product meant not to offend rather than one whose educational agenda is foremost. Wnt (talk) 12:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Wnt, have you read that article? Please do so. You will see unseen offences with the death threats and defamations in each sentence of Janevistan. It shows the pattern of nasty and unlawful behavior, contrary to the rules of conduct for internet media. If you read conversation between Mac. admin. and SH. admin. you will see that SH.Wiki admin (O.C.Riper) admits wrongdoing but is reluctant to do anything abuot it! Still, I am glad to report that one of co-creators of Janevistan was finally banned from editing by ‎Wikimedia Foundation [5], for other reasons (‎Wikimedia Foundation Block: Disruptive and superfluous edits).5.45.62.131 (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

P.S. My advise to Jimmy is to contact the Wikimedia Foundation - Support - Safety, just to have a proper information about legal aspects of the above mentioned offenses.Libertarian Macedonian (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

If I may add here that the banned user of SH.Wiki Kolega2357 was also involved in fabrication of famous "Hoax" META story about Igor Janev, claiming that he does not exist [6]. That was accepted as a "truth" somewhere. But facts apparently speak for themselves [7].77.234.45.133 (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

SH.Wiki Kolega2357 in action on la.wikipedia talk page [8]!178.223.39.198 (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

And more actions by presently banned user Kolega2357 [9][10], and similar on 10 more wikis.178.223.39.198 (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

So, we should keep an eye on the user page of User:Donald Trump? :) .

For anyone with the relevant access, see also OTRS ticket:2016110810027764. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

It appears on sh.wiki like a regular article [11] not just a subpage, when you press search button. I find interesting that the actual creator of the page consider that person as his fan[12]. See list of fans in Orjentolog list (left in Babylon).Looks to me like a stalker.5.45.62.130 (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

SH.Wikipedia is a minor small Wiki with a really bad reputation. It only makes copies from Serbian and Croatian Wikipedia. In many occasions there were formal actions from both Serbian and Croatian Wikies to close that "Serbo-Croatian Wiki", but unfortunately with no success. People there are completely incompetent and irresponsible. Actually, Serbo-Croatian language doesn't really exist any more. So all editors expelled from Serbian and Croatian Wikipedia are now there. In one word so called "Serbo-Croatian Wiki", is the embarrassment for Wikipedia in general.77.234.40.180 (talk) 13:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there is quite a funny joke there. Looking at the Google Translate for the page I saw nothing but harmless drollery (to use, nostalgically, the word now rendered as "trolling", from a more civilized time when creative expression was valued). But one of their big jokes is that every major feat in Macedonian culture was performed by Igor Janev. I found an article about him at hr:Igor_Janev, which lists 13 other Wikis, including the Macedonian and the Serbian, which have similar articles; but our article on en.wikipedia has been deleted as a "blatant hoax", and 'salted' so that no one can restart it.

If Wikipedia wants to work on improving its reputation, it'd be nice to have a better way of spreading the word (or debating the issue) about hoaxes, especially BLP hoaxes, between the different language Wikipedias. Wnt (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Admins. can always restart the BLP on Him, on the other hand He already have enough BLP in other languages. The idea on harmonization of inter-wiki policies is a good one. Someone cannot be celebrity on some Wikies and hoax on others. The article on Him was never salted on Greek Wiki, and that's surprises me. Or maybe not?5.45.62.166 (talk) 09:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

And what about eng.wiki? Based on apparently falsified and incomplete fact and stories about Igor Janev on META and elsewhere, his name, as such, became the subject of systematic disgracing and humiliation trough process of name eradication and termination on eng.wiki, as a spam. Was that in accordance with the rule of civility you claim to preserve here, or perhaps his rights, particularly not to be humiliated and insulted or offended, were breached?79.101.133.198 (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

And everyone who defended his name or disagreed with spam or hoax qualification(s) and insults was treated as sock(s) or vandal(s), here.79.101.133.198 (talk) 10:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Hoax or spam story was a fake and manipulation at META and even stupid. Particularly to report on META "It was recently discovered in dewp that the article about "Igor Janev" was a fake. They could saw Google Scholar [13]. If article about him was a "blatant hoax" it would had been immediately removed on Macedonian Wikipedia and Serbian Wikipedia. But that was not the case.77.234.45.133 (talk) 15:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

As for trolling, I don't see anything funny by describing Macedonians as a wild primitive savages constantly attacking other people and countries with shadow "Tsar" Igor Janev, an extremist, nationalist and expansionist. Maybe he is not an A. Einstein, but he gave some notable contribution to the Macedonian science.77.234.45.133 (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The way you describe this user subpage makes me wonder if Google Translate cuts out all the good stuff. Meanwhile, I notice that Commons deleted a number of illustrations that were once part of it, on the rationale that they were posted without permission of their true author -- Igor Janev. :) [14] Wnt (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know details, but I presume that these illustrations would require that I.J. personally send approvals for OTRS, and I don't think he would ever act personally on such matters. Actually what I learned observing net, he never uses Twitter, Facebook, or any other social nets.77.234.45.133 (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, now I found it. These illustrations are photo's of I.J. fighting dog, that is, according to sh.wiki the only "Fauna" in Macedonia. The only sport in Janevistan or Macedonia is dog fighting, and the winner in dog fights is always his dog, and so on.. (never-ending nonsenses). The good stuff? Under label "Government" (sh./mk. "Vlada") goes "Tsar (in exile)" (sh. Car- Igor Janev (u izgnanstvu)), basically suggesting that person from another country rules and runs the government in Macedonia. And so on...

Macedonians were his fighting dogs!? "Dogs of the war"?

Proposal for the deletion of photo's of I.J.'s dog was initiated by the creator of "Janevistan", namely sh. User:Orjentolog! Apparently user "Orjentolog" was sickly obsessed by Igor Janev, just as previously sh. User:Kolega2357 was (and perhaps both were stalking him?).77.234.45.149 (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

77.234.45.151 (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Finlay, and very provocative to the Greek state is the catastrophic suggestion that "temporary occupied" Greek city of Thessaloniki (sh. "Solun" (under Capital label)) the "capital" of Janevistan should be retaken - liberated (presumably by Macedonian army, implied by sh. editors) and that it was allegedly plan of Janevistanian or Macedonian government! These inflammatory crazy nonsenses are of very sensitive nature in Balkans and should not be tolerated on any Wikipedia, regardless of the tipe of the site. Balkan countries had enough wars in the past, and to post such diabolic suggestion for war between Greece and Macedonia is not a joke, not a humor at all, nor ordinary trolling. That site should definitely be deleted and sh. admins. blocked.77.234.45.151 (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Jimmy, make that abomination of sh. site vanish ones and for all. This is an embracement for Wikipedia. I ask myself here are there any limits for editors or administraotrs there, or more generally on Wikipedia as an Encyclopedia, before any intervention by management or people governing Wikipedia? Where are the boundaries here? Let me add my impression about that site. In the first sentence of "Janevistan" the editors were mocking about Macedonian Constitution that allegedly define the Macedonian territory as area of Eastern Europe, most of Africa and Asia, accusing and mocking the creators of the Macedonian Constitution for irredentism and expansionist aspirations embedded in the highest legal document. Let me remind everyone here, just for information, that there are a provisions (amendments to Macedonian Constitution, made on January 6, 1992.) asserting that of Republic Macedonia "has no territorial claims against any neighboring states". The policy of the Republic of Macedonia was peaceful and never with aspirations toward any territories of other countries. And by the way, I don't see here anybody from sh.wikipedia to defend themselves! I assume they already saw these discussion suggesting not only the removal of insulting abomination, but the meaningful ideas proposing to shutdown sh. project, as such. Remaining respectful,Risto Nikovski (talk) 02:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, don't get very upset. This is not the only master peace at the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia. One should give the Nobel prize for peace to the creators of that site. As for Igor Janev such articles only busted his popularity in Macedonia and beyond. And Wikipedia also benefited perhaps because now, after Janevistan, more than 5% of people in Macedonia read Wikipedia. All sins will be forgiven!178.223.24.207 (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I wonder, about the "Name issue" of the Republic of Macedonia, how would USA behave if the United Nations try to impose UN membership designation "Former British colony", replacing the official name USA. Now, as you know reference for the Republic of Macedonia in UN is "the Former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia" (FYROM)! I guess your answer would be that US will never become a member of any international organization if it have to accept "Former British colony" for the provisional name or reference for the USA in international organization(s).79.101.187.172 (talk) 11:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• Beside that, Macedonian diplomats may always say that name "Macedonia" is legally different from the "Republic of Macedonia" (disputed[15]), so no grounds to complain from Greek State, or dispute over name.77.46.207.9 (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• Greek allegation that the name of the applicant state implies "territorial claims" has no legal significance and grounds. The name of a state, which is a subject of that state’s domestic jurisdiction (since every state naturally has an inherent right to a name), does not create international legal rights for the state that adopts the name, nor does it impose legal obligations on other states. Clearly, the name does not have an impact on the territorial rights of states.Risto Nikovski (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

How about the basic policy and the rule of civility enshrined in the basic (legal) document(s) of Wikipedia/Wikimedia. Should this rule and the other basic rules be honored and protected? Or, just everyone can do or say whatever he/she/they like(s)?79.101.133.198 (talk) 06:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Failure to act in the case of Janevistan is also a crucial decision. Janevstan per se should be interpreted as the negative and terrible precedent in violating of the standards of Encyclopedia. Failure to act in this case my lead to other similar cases were people and nations could be treated in Wikies without dignity and respect.79.101.133.198 (talk) 11:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry very soon someone will make that site gone. Jimbo has a zero tolerance for this type of Vandalism.77.105.62.195 (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think sh.admins. will appear here to explain vandalism.79.101.187.172 (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Though, sh. Clerk / CheckUser here have provided the blocking for editor[16] on 14. November 2016.79.101.187.172 (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Proper place for closing Wiki Project is META. Such as earlier [17][18].79.101.187.172 (talk) 09:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Right now, there is an ongoing request to remove one (of two) sh. administrator for the massive abuse of rights and harassment on SH. Wikipedia (i.e admin. Edgar Allan Poe) [19]. The procedure for removal of the administrator was initiated by another sh.Wiki user "Vujkovica brdo" (https://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korisnik:Vujkovica_brdo). As everyone can understand from the voting scores, the two administrators (namely Edgar Allan Poe and O.C. Ripper) have joined together and, with the user "Orjentolog" (notorious creator of the "Janevistan") outvoted their colleague user "Vujkovica brdo" and made the mockery of the entire process! Recently, another user from sh.Wiki "Seiya" (https://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korisnik:Seiya) also left that Wikipedia unsatisfied with the behavior there.79.101.187.172 (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

It was said in the discussion that harassment of administrator Edgar Allan Poe in long period of time left virtually no wiki. standards/rules here, whatsoever.79.101.187.172 (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Just to give you an idea of the language in use there, user "Orjentolog" said in the comment of the page (→‎Za: Готов је!) or in English: "He is finished!" [20].93.87.214.23 (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

On "Janevistan" history page you may find even worse page comments (such as "Victims of Assassination" Category, and more similar stuff).93.87.214.23 (talk) 04:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Not to forget plagiarism on Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia, were thousands of copies were directly taken (copy-paste) from ether Serbian Wikipedia or Croatian Wikipedia, or to put it in different way, probably more than 90 % of all articles were plagiarism.178.223.39.198 (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Plagiarism is the form of Vandalism (sometimes and somewhere crime / misdemeanor), and people who practice that on the regular basis and massive scale, as some sh.editors, should be treated as Vandals.178.223.39.198 (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

So instead of punishing real vandals Fake Meta Affair creators few years ago (2013) [21] (users from Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia), Igor Janev (article) had been punished by being salted on English Wikipedia and few other Wikis.178.223.21.243 (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo should restart or re-salt the article on Igor Janev.178.223.39.198 (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I reported this case of harassment/threats (on SH.Wikipedia/”Janevistan“) to META [22][23][24][25].Risto Nikovski (talk) 09:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Real question here may be put in the form: can racist-alike offences / insults or even threats be allowed in the Wiki space (in general), even on subpages or not? SH. editors cannot defend their site "Janevistan" by saying "that was just a subpage "humor", justifying everything by that fact. Clearly, Wikipedia should apply some universally accepted standards and take care about the economy of its space (Wiki space is not infinite). Does the intervention of WMF banning Kolega2357 (see above, disruptive and superfluous edits, basis for banning) constitute a good precedent for a similar intervention of (any) Wiki authority to remove racist-alike site(s) and preserve the (scarce) Wiki space? Some Thoughts?77.46.207.9 (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I found one more deadly threat by user:Orjentolog [26] directed to Igor Janev, see Orijentolog (Razgovor | doprinosi) "(likvidirali su čoveka!)" or in Eng. translation "Man has been assassinated!"!! These things goes far, far beyond the normal functioning of Encyclopedia. Not only that "Janevistan" should be deleted, but user:Orjentolog should be banned on a permanent term!77.46.207.9 (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Further, to establish motives for the site, what I learned from the communication between sh.user Orjentolog with sh.user Seiya was that there was a plan to create mess with Janevistan (Feb. 5. 2016, Izmjena od 13:21, 5 februar 2016)[27]. User Seiya said to User Orjentolog: "Ori, ti si potpuno upropastio makedonsko-srpskohrvatske odnose! Da nije Makedonija napustila SFRJ još 1991., napustila bi ju danas, nakon ovoga. Zar ti nije već dovoljno zategnuta situacija na Balkanu sa svim ovim izbjeglicama, ti još hoćeš malo dodatno zapapriti i makedonskim ratom? Čuvaj se! Nemoj ići nigdje predaleko na jug!" shortly translated: "You destroyed our relations with Macedonians. Do you want war with Macedonia?....If Macedonia had not left the Yugoslavia in 1991, that would happend today! ...Beware! Do not go to far on South." Orjentolog answered, something like " I give a damn". As I can see and conclude, some kids or students were playing war games, for fun! And META took their statements seriously 3 years ago!77.46.207.9 (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

In light of that, I agree with others who advocate for banning sh.admins. too.77.46.207.9 (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Before that statement [28] i.e. (“Ori, ti si potpuno upropastio makedonsko-srpskohrvatske odnose! Da nije Makedonija napustila SFRJ još 1991., napustila bi ju danas, nakon ovoga. Zar ti nije već dovoljno zategnuta situacija na Balkanu sa svim ovim izbjeglicama, ti još hoćeš malo dodatno zapapriti i makedonskim ratom? Čuvaj se! Nemoj ići nigdje predaleko na jug! Kad krenu bombe po tvojem predgrađu, nemoj mene uvlačiti u to! Svi imaju tu crno na bijelo da sam ja po pitanju članka glasovao "za"! Македонија е наш пријател”)(please use Google Translate here), sh. administrator Edgar Allan Poe said “ali, jesu bar dobri obavještajci?” or like “Do they have a good intel?”/or: Do we have the good intelligence. So they all were playing a spy game(s) for fun or amusement.77.234.45.154 (talk) 10:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

plus, the other sh.admin. in chief agreed to such stupidities?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.223.27.177 (talk) 10:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Corruption in SH.93.86.248.226 (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Kolega2357 was already under scrutiny about META case in 2013.(Igor Janev) on sr.wiki(patrolling rights case) [29], and stated there: „Ne znam ja o kakvim ti to izmjenama govoriš ali iza afere Janev ko zna ko stoji ja sigurno ne jer ne znam makedonski a to svi znaju.“ shortly translated: I am not behind that Affair. (Confessing there was Affair!!). Despite that statement Kolega2357 did not got patrolling rights, probably because no one believed him.93.86.239.208 (talk) 10:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Jimmy, I hope that you will not ignore me or my advise. In light of presented proves above, you should clear the name of Igor Janev, restart art. on him i.e.Igor Janev, and instruct someone to ask admins. on SH.Wikipedia, in good will, to remove the Janevistan site. No further measures are necessary, such as blocking or banning. Thank you for your patience and time. Remaining respectful.Risto Nikovski (talk) 04:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

see[30].178.222.115.184 (talk) 14:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

and this [31][32].91.150.102.226 (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

As everyone can see admin. Edgar only removed Template for deletion!79.101.161.124 (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

and user who proposed the deletion was blocked to unlimited period of time [33]. Someone should delete the site, block creator of Janevistan (Korisnik:Orijentolog)and remove admin. rights to Edgar Allan Poe. That is why the Stewards exist!93.87.154.148 (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

plus, admins. on sh.wiki give a damn about discussion we have here on Jimbo Talk Page. In his comment admin. Edgar said: "Ovaj se baš namjerio na tebe x'D" [34], or "This one creates The X-Files" (as Explanation for deletion of Template for deletion of Janevistan).93.87.154.148 (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

"x'D" means "Dosije X" or "The X-Files".93.87.154.148 (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

And a new Request for deletion of Janevistan [35].79.101.187.251 (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

So we got the answer from sh.admin Edgar Allan Poe about "ARTICLE" : "I would kindly ask you to stop adding deletion requests to the page in question; it is clearly a humorous article not intended to insult anyone or anything, as is stated on the top of the page. There is no reason to delete it "--Biljezim se sa štovanjem,Poe 23:35, 27 novembar 2016"[36]! No comment.178.222.60.128 (talk) 02:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Request

Could you please begin the foundational work so as to integrate an incentive reward system whereby editors can receive bitcoin micropayments on the basis of merit. Its going to be vital to get the parameters correct. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

It would be a better idea to allow people to obtain compensation in a useful medium of exchange, rather than a volatile commodity the main purposes of which in practice are to facilitate easier illegal transactions and to allow speculators and scammers to prey on people looking to get rich quick. --47.138.163.230 (talk) 01:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Such a proposal risks turning all editors into "paid editors". In theory, editors can be paid from an impartial source -- preferably a basic income, which liberates all mankind to pursue intellectual, artistic, and monastic pursuits. Barring that, an agency which makes minimal certification that Wikipedia work is being done. But when they put out the tip jar to whore for every anonymous nickel that comes their way, editors are no longer writing for the benefit of all, but for the pleasure of whoever is paying them the most. Wnt (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Which is why we have to implement it, lest someone else take control. - Shiftchange (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, so if I understand correctly you would like the WMF to pay editors a small amount per edit. This makes some sense, but it has some drawbacks also. The first thing, obviously, is that some people might edit more but not better to get the reward. A related issue is that people are more desperate for cash in some countries (indeed, even in some U.S. states) than others -- if you pay everyone the same per edit, then a lot of folks will be outraged about some Pakistanis who patrol for commas to fix sixteen hours a day; but if you pay Americans more, that will be seen as outrageous chauvinism (not to mention expensive -- who hires Americans?) I think that some of these problems might be reduced by moving a bit closer to the basic minimum income model, i.e. WMF would pay all "active editors in good standing" a low fixed stipend. The money would not be much and the editing required would not go beyond what an interested hobbyist does in his off time. It might be low enough that editors in wealthier countries simply cash it back to WMF, but now they could style themselves as donors; others might justify that it (perhaps) pays for the internet connection. There would still be an issue with sock puppetry, but it would be harder (and not especially worthwhile) to collect multiple checks via intermediaries. There would still be a tendency to pull in a lot more "Third World" editors this way and it would draw bitter complaints, but hopefully not with quite as much foundation, and WMF does want to broaden its user base, if Wikipedia actually remains legal to read in more than a few countries. And of course limiting the amount also would make the program cheaper. Can you do it? Maybe. Wnt (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

No. I want WMF to enable value exchange as a reward for quality contributions or merit. I want WMF to do it before others do, so that the editing process is not hijacked. If we visit a market and pay with fake money such as wikilove messages the product will always be inferior to one in which something valuable is exchanged. This is why cryptocurrencies will reshape internet media. They will be the reward for users in front of their devices for whatever outcome we collectively seek. That is how cash works. Social media will use them to filter quality content and so if Wikipedia doesn't, eyeballs will leave us. This is our new paradigm. Lets play with the genie before it plays us. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Gosh, I believe I couldn't possibly disagree more. To make this more obvious to you, suppose a major newspaper took the same approach: rather than hiring journalists, they would simply set up a marketplace so that the journalists could sell their services to the highest bidder. What kind of stories do you think major companies and authoritarian governments would be happy to sponsor? But even though that part is obvious, you should observe that another premise of your argument is being quite obviously demonstrated to be untrue every day. "That is how cash works. Social media will use them to filter quality content and so if Wikipedia doesn't, eyeballs will leave us." Wikipedia has grown to be vastly popular precisely because our model does not encourage authors to chase eyeballs with clickbait and controversy. Think about that, as it is perhaps a bit paradoxical: the way to have a huge audience in the long run, is to care very little about inflating page views in the short run. Why? Because at the end of the way, while people may end up clicking on a tempting headline of "sharable content" on social media, they find it unsatisfying and seek out quality instead.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't mean to be disrespectful nor argumentative but that analogy isn't valid because we don't conduct our business as a hierarchy. I'm talking about peer to peer reward. I just want the best way to pat my fellow contributor on the back with a gracious thank you. The best way to do that has now been optimised and proven. If we maladapt there is risk of forking and obsolescence. Isn't it possible our model will be refined upon by others through greater exchange of value mechanisms, namely cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin? I see social media improving this way leaving us behind. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Shiftchange, your ideas are spectacularly out-of-touch with reality. I would say the probability is approaching certainty that if you actually did try to "pat your fellow contributors on the back" by offering them payments you'd cause such offence you'd be blocked for incivility, and if the WMF were to try to introduce such a scheme it would cause such an exodus of editors that Wikipedia and its sister projects would collapse altogether, quite aside from the disastrous impact on Wikipedia's credibility such a scheme would inevitably cause. And I say that as someone near the top of both WP:WBFAN and WP:WBE, presumably the two primary metrics you intend to use to measure "quality contributions", and thus one of the people who'd have most to gain from such a system. ‑ Iridescent 16:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Wnt, if you want to trust the WMF with your bank account details—which would presumably be necessary in order to pay your proposed basic income, since even if they have nothing to hide most people aren't going to want the unwanted attention from the authorities that would come if they suddenly started conducting transactions in bitcoin—you have considerably more confidence in their security than I do. ‑ Iridescent 16:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I was not aware of fear of totalitarianism inhibiting bitcoin transactions, but the solution for WMF would seem obvious: they could send a physical check as often as it amounts to enough money to be worth cashing. Even if they offered a buck or two bonus for electronic payments to offset the cost of printing, checking and mail, some Luddites here, myself included, would likely turn it down for the reasons you mention. Alternatively, they might send out some kind of cash card unlinked to an account (though somehow the finance industry schemers usually figure out a way to encumber those with absurd fees); these might be of relevance to users without ready resort to banking. Wnt (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Shiftchange: It might be possible to pursue your idea via a different route. Wikipedia edits might be considered "proof of work" as the basis of a cryptocurrency scheme. There are many alternatives to Bitcoin, typically worth much less, but with a value that can increase per publicity. A Wikipedia-backed cryptocurrency would expect unusual publicity, hence unusual value. The catch is that launching a cryptocurrency is no easy feat; it requires a deep understanding of the dark illusionism by which nations and peoples are ruled. An additional technical issue is that a universal, refereeless standard of a "meaningful edit in good standing" would be needed to prevent abusers from inundating the 'pedia with spam while diluting the currency to zero. Wnt (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Planned recount of 2016 US presidential election

Here we go again. This time the Green Party is filing for recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan & Pennsylvania (electoral votes: 10, 16 and 20, enough to elect Hillary Clinton; source: Reuters J18X). I think we'll need a separate article page for 2016 Recount, but coverage has begun as a small section in:

• "United States presidential election, 2016#Electronic vote tampering concerns"

Beyond hiding ballots ("behind a file cabinet" as in Nov. 2000), there are numerous potential computer viruses which could switch votes, and print a voter record to match, unless a voter reads the vote-record to reject result as not how they voted. In Pennsylvania, the margin was ~68,500 more votes for Trump, but that count could be easy to slant, especially if only occasional votes were flipped and many voters did not verify their printed voter record. With Justice Antonin Scalia now gone, I don't think U.S. Supreme Court could stop recount(s) this time (as in year 2000's 5/4 halt decision), although Republicans did file to stop Nevada voters for 2016 election day, but rejected by judge. I studied potential voter viruses, years ago, which could delete themselves after election day, and only flip votes after the first hundred ballots were cast or checked by pre-test of machine tallies. See 2006 concerns: "Controversy Surrounds Computerized Voting Systems". The other recount filing deadlines are Monday/Wednesday, 28/30 Nov 2016. Because of such extensive details, I think a separate article page would be needed for proper coverage of similar details, and how Republicans try to stop recounts this time. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC) More sources: Guardian nov/23, "Nevada judge denies Trump request; warns about Twitter trolls" (CNN 8Nov16). -Wikid77 (talk) 11:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

What does this have to do with Jimmy Wales? If you think a topic warrants a Wikipedia article, write an article; you don't need to get his permission. ‑ Iridescent 08:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales has expressed interest in major elections, as with the Brexit vote, and Wikipedia coverage of major topics. The 2016 U.S. presidential election is remarkable for the "losing" candidate to have received 2 million more votes than her opponent, as suspicious where close vote totals favored the less-popular opponent. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Keeping my ArbCom receipt ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Recount & forensic analysis of voting machines

For Wikipedia to explain the 2016 Recounts looks to be more complex than "hanging chad" of the 2000 Florida recount. The Green Party filed to recount Wisconsin (near 1 hour from deadline), and Clinton campaign lawyers have joined the Wisconsin recount analysis (see: "Clinton Camp Will Join Push for Wisconsin Ballot Recount" NYTimes). Secondary sources have stated that, beyond recount of ballots, there is also the problem of "forensic analysis of voting machines" (see: "Experts Urge Clinton Campaign to Challenge Election Results in 3 Swing States" NYmag), which could check for evidence of computer viruses or patches to executable programs used within the voting machines or any central tabulator computers, as in prior tampering crimes of such machines. As you might know, some computer programmers create software with "filler areas" of null instructions within the software's machine code, and such areas can be quickly patched with overlaid machine code (as different calculations) which fit within those filler areas, also possibly adding other null instructions to pad as fitting the same diskspace region. A special program, to overwrite the same diskspace (or firmware?), could be used to bypass file timestamps and alter program execution code, without showing history of altering file modification dates in a directory folder. Experts in program patches or voting machine tampering could compare bitwise executable code to detect changes beyond file-modification dates. Such comparisons would need to account for any installation-specific data in those voting machines. A disassembler could be used to reveal any altered calculation(s), such as the prior tampering which forced tally as 50%+1 to avoid runoff election of local officials who used spoiler candidates to weaken the popular choice, then faked 50%+1 to hide minority candidate win. All these details would increase the need for new WP pages to explain the 2016 Recounts, perhaps even a page for each state (Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan), to also explain what evidence backed the authorization to recount each state, and the expected lawsuits to halt the various recounts (and explain the obtuse legalese invoked to delay any counts). Then there can be fake protests, bussing in people who pretend to be local residents protesting a recount, as in Florida 2000. Plus 6 in U.S. electoral college refusing to vote Trump. That's enough issues for now. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Suicide after serious claims made against person, including in Wikipedia article

See: Talk:David Hamilton (photographer). -Wikid77 (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Over the past week, a woman has made serious and (currently) unproven claims against the famous photographer David Hamilton. These claims made their way into his Wikipedia article. During this time, User:Wvdpanhuysen created an account to suggest at Talk:David Hamilton (photographer) that the allegations are removed. It was almost certainly a single-purposer account. The user found no reply. Earlier tonight, Mr Hamilton was found dead at his home in an apparent suicide. Whilst Wikipedia is probably not to blame here, it should make editors feel very uncomfortable. 2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:B09D:E229:E3F9:2664 (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

A couple of remarks

1. It's why we have WP:BIO WP:BLP corrected. Kleuske (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
2. The article cited does not claim suicide (cites unclear circumstances) and the guy was 83
3. Wikipedia is intended to summarize the sources. If reliable sources level accusations, Wikipedia reports them. Neutrally.
4. Guilt tripping people, generally, is unproductive.

Kleuske (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

This kind of response is precisely why I gave up editing Wikipedia. I have come to post a genuine concern and straight away get a rude, dismissive reply. What happened to assume good faith? The article clearly states that some reports are citing suicide, which is sad even if he is 83 (as if old-age would make it unimportant?). A brand-new user is unlikely to know WP:BIO or to know Wikipedia's policies in detail. Wvdpanhuysen should have known straightforward ways to contact experienced, helpful editors. 2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:B09D:E229:E3F9:2664 (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

In fact, now I have been reminded of the atmosphere here, I would rather not become any further involved. 2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:B09D:E229:E3F9:2664 (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The article did not say anything about suicide at the time Kleuske composed their reply to you, for the simple reason that no reliable source had done so as of that time. Now that reliable sources have done so, this reliably sourced information has been added to the article. Indeed, assume good faith. General Ization ^Talk 00:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I assume good faith, but that does not imply I have to agree. The phrase "it should make editors feel very uncomfortable" is nothing short of an attempt at guilt-tripping non-involved editors. The one page you haven't posted your concerns to, is the appropriate talk-page, where these remarks might actually do some good. Kleuske (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I stand with the IP address editor. No need to be rude or to not assume good faith. Discuss the content without editorializing and personalizing it to the editor. It's not hard. SageRad (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• While the suicide would seem to be a byproduct of the rape allegation, and not a Wikipedia article on it, we should not shrug this off. User:Wvdpanhuysen, probably Hamilton, made a valid point. That material seems excessively weighted per BLP and NPOV. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 00:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Shrug it off? No. Is there a WP:BIO-issue? Maybe. We have a noticeboard for that and I suggest you take it there. Should that "make editors feel very uncomfortable"? Hell, no. Kleuske (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
    • WP:BIO is the notability guideline for biographies and is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 03:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
      • Got it mixed-up with WP:BLP, apparently. Sorry 'bout that. Kleuske (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
        • I've asked for input on BLP/N. I agree that the "uncomfortable" contention is meritless. It's absurd to suggest that Wikipedia had any role in his suicide. But I do believe that the article in question may be out of balance. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
          • Had the anon raised the issue on the appropriate talk-page, I would have lauded them for it. Instead they posted this on WP:ANI, where I encountered it. The actions of the anon did not indicate a desire to rectify the situation, but an indictment of the community, using WP:ANI as a WP:SOAPBOX. Hence my terse reaction. WP:BLP issues can never entirely be avoided, given the ratio between users who know about WP:BLP, the regulars, and the sheer number of biographies on Wikipedia. Shit is bound to happen, and occasionally it will hit the fan. Kleuske (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
            • I'm not taking you to task. I was concerned that we not ignore the state of the article due to poor presentation, and now there are more editors working there so that has been effectuated. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
• Much of the material in question was added by a WP:SPA, Gabuzomeuh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This shows the block of changes: [37]. That username is a reference to les Shadoks, a somewhat obscure French cartoon that also broadcast in the UK in the early 70s. Not sure what can be read from that. Guy (Help!) 01:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Most likely only that the edits were made by an English-speaking resident of France, not surprising since Hamilton was an English expatriate living in France for most of his life, and since the majority of the reporting concerning allegations by Flament, herself French, has thus far been in French media. General Ization ^Talk 03:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

--- Hello there, I am Gabuzomeuh and can confirm I am a real, professional and serious editor. For complete information about this facts, perhaps those of you who understand French language should read the French-written David Hamilton wikipedia page (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hamilton). It offers latest developpements and precise pieces of news about this very sad story everybody should be aware of. In fact, not only Flavie Flament (radio and tv animator, author of La consolation book) was a victim. There are four declared victim now. Three other womens have made testimony of rapes in reliable magazines (http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/societe/20161116.OBS1313/affaire-flavie-flament-d-autres-femmes-accusent-david-hamilton-de-viol.html). Also, Mrs Flament has recently received support from the French Governement in the person on Mrs Laurence Rossignol, the minister of Family, Childhood and Rights of Women, who appointed her to lead a "consensus mission" about rapes and "prescriptions delays". Flament has accepted to work on this with the help of jurist (http://www.lci.fr/people/laurence-rossignol-choisit-flavie-flament-pour-conduire-une-mission-sur-le-viol-et-les-delais-de-prescription-2013816.html, http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2016/11/25/flavie-flament-se-voit-confier-une-mission-sur-le-delai-de-prescription-pour-le-viol_5038260_3224.html). About the death, Police indicates that "suicide is privileged" (http://www.leparisien.fr/laparisienne/actu-people/personnalites/mort-de-david-hamilton-la-piste-du-suicide-privilegiee-par-les-enqueteurs-26-11-2016-6378687.php, http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2016/11/26/97001-20161126FILWWW00047-mort-de-david-hamilton-la-piste-du-suicide-privilegiee.php, http://www.europe1.fr/faits-divers/accuse-de-viol-le-photographe-david-hamilton-a-tente-de-se-suicider-2911382). If some of you can help to report on these valids and verifies informations in the UK page, that would be nice and greatly help to inform neutraly and rightly English-speaking people, including the most young ones. Best regards, and thank you, --Gabuzomeuh (talk) 13:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I suggest moving this discussion to the article talk page. "Wikipedia's role" is a red herring, irrelevant, and pure speculation. The question is whether Hamilton's bio is weighted properly. At first glance my sense is that it is not, due to recentism and excessive weight given to scandals. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I've posted on BLP/N. I recommend that interested editors improve the article, perhaps by fixing any neutrality issue. There's really no mega-issue here. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

We should remember the difference between correlation and causation here. If someone is well known, he will have a Wikipedia article. If there are a number of sources describing an allegation against him, they will be added to his article. For this reason, any well-known person who commits suicide after widespread publication of allegations will do so at about the same time that Wikipedians are adding mention of these to his article - even when there is no causal link and the person never read the article.

We should also bear in mind that by covering such matters, when appropriate sourcing exists, Wikipedia is just doing its job, and should not be ashamed to do its job, just as police and prosecutors and reporters are not ashamed to do their jobs even when they know that their efforts will drive some individuals to suicide. (There is a stronger case to be made that (in general) prosecutors should be deterred by such considerations since prison is so terrible and has so little scientific justification; were they to forget such matters, at least for a situation like this, perhaps it would all be for the best. But many potential victims would vehemently disagree!) Wnt (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia contributing to Hamilton's death, note that by design Wikipedia is second hand information. As editors, we may run the risk of having a distorted view of Wikipedia's adverse effect on a person who is the subject of a Wikipedia article, compared to the adverse effect of predominant news media. Also there is WP:BLP to help. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• Any OTRS volunteer will tell you that people will often blame Wikipedia for allegations against them. This is rarely accurate - unsourced material is generally removed pretty quickly , and in this case the material definitely was sourced properly - but we do increase its prominence in some cases. I am not convinced en-wp had any role in the unfortunate suicide of Mr. Hamilton, the media profile of the allegations in France is unlikely to need any boosting here, but it would be as well for the Foundation to look carefully at whether the fr-wp article was compliant, as that seems to me to be a lot more forthright than our version. Guy (Help!) 23:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Plus we have no direct evidence that he was even cognizant of the Wikipedia articles, either here or the French version. He had much going on in his life obviously. To my knowledge, no one said "I am the subject of this article." We are only surmising that. So this whole "Wikipedia killed him" meme is unsubstantiated. As far as the article itself is concerned, the central problem is that the subject and/or concerned editors failed to use the channels available to him prior to his death. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Is WP:NOTDIR still valid?

Jimmy, back when Wikipedia was still running on steam, we had a fairly clear hierarchy of policies. WP:V and WP:NPOV together led to WP:RS, and that in turn to what is now termed WP:GNG. Arguments that X has an article so Y should as well, were routinely discounted per WP:NOTDIR.

The School Wars resulted in a de facto policy that all high schools are "inherently notable". That is, sources could be found, if people cared, even if the sources are all namechecks in little league match reports.

We now have a whole slew of subject-specific notability guidelines following a similar model, and I have noticed that there has been a change in how these are interpreted. When I first started sysoping a decade ago, failing a subject specific notability guideline was a valid deletion argument (albeit one that could be overridden by the presence of sufficient sources). Now, passing a subject-specific guideline is taken as a suitable rationale for keeping. So, a journal which is indexed, will probably not be deleted even if there is not one single source about that journal. The only descriptors are databases and descriptions supplied by the journal. The publisher may not be notable, it may even be predatory, but WP:ITSINDEXED has become a compelling argument to keep.

This is fine as long as we accept that WP:V is valid; that WP:NPOV can be ignored as long as we merely state that it exists (and noncontroversial information such as the editor); that WP:RS does not require any independent sources, only sources that are normally considered reliable - but we still have an issue with WP:NOTDIR.

In your view, is Wikipedia legitimately a directory now? If so I will start a WP:CENT discussion to mark NOTDIR as historical. Guy (Help!) 00:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

For starters, if you accept the Wikipedian mantra that the project's goal is to present the sum of human knowledge free of charge to all the people of the world in their own native languages, this entire line about worrisome inclusionism overtaking the deletionist norms of old blows away like a cloud of acrid dust in the afternoon wind... So high schools are automatically included? So what? It means that we aren't stuck wasting hundreds or thousands of hours of volunteer time parsing sources and fighting over the merits or demerits of inclusion of this school and not that. So academic journals of more than a few years standing are kept? So what? It means that our readers attempting to assess whether Specific Journal A cited in one of our footnotes is trustworthy are likely to have a blue link to follow to assess the merit of the assertion backed by the citation. Where is the problem there? Whatever the problems with the inclusion boundaries of WP, these are two perfectly horrible examples to be making if one is attempting to gain sympathy for a more deletionist orientation. Talk about corporate spam about nothing businesses, or promotional crap about lawyers or PR reps, or self-serving gunk about politicians on the make if you want to gain sympathy for that orientation. A blue link for every high school on the planet seems a fine goal to me, and one that can ultimately be sourced out to boot. Similarly if we had an article on every academic or pseudo-academic journal on the planet, or every inhabited place, or every significant geological feature, or what have you — so much the better. Sum of human knowledge, and all of that... Carrite (talk) 05:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

To quote the most relevant sentence in WP:NOTDIR, "However, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed." When it comes to schools, the commonly accepted working consensus is that the vast majority of primary schools are unlikely to be notable, while verified accredited degree-awarding high schools, colleges and universities are likely to be notable. If Wikipedia was an indiscriminate directory, then we would have a far more massive number of articles about primary schools, as well as a biography of me and an article about my house, all verifiable. Wikipedia should not be a directory of every blade of grass and every grain of sand on the beach, but gratefully accepting articles about high schools, parliamentarians, Olympic athletes, academic journals and the like is not at all a violation of WP:NOTDIR, but is instead a practice which actually improves this encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

That's missing the point I was trying to make, though. With schools, the fact is that you won't ever get one deleted because regardless of the quality of sources, there are people who will either dig new ones out or stretch the definition of WP:RS. So as far as high schools goes, there is a consensus that we are a directory and have entries that are based solely on directories.

Now back to the actual question. Numerous subject-specific guidelines are now being used not in the traditional sense that if X fails this guide then X is not likely to be notable, but instead in the sense that if X meets this guide then X is notable, regardless of the availability of sources. Journals is an example I gave, there are others. It appears to me that subject-specific guidelines agreed by special-interest editors have been used to overrule WP:GNG in numerous areas. Autobiographies of acadaemics, for example, are kept per WP:PROF even though the sources are "he has published X papers (source: subjects's list of papers)" and "he teaches at Y university (source: university directory)". DGG, whose opinion on notability I respect more than perhaps any other Wikipedian, opined, if I recall correctly, that he does not like WP:GNG and prefers subject specific guidelines.

A specific example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Global Information Management. This is a journal with an impact factor of 0.303, so would be rejected as a source in any Wikipedia article. It is published by a nonn-notable publisher whose article we actually deleted. There are no reliable independent sources discussing the journal, we have substantiation only for the fact that it exists. It is a total failure of WP:GNG but passes the journal guideline because it is indexed and has an IF (even though the IF is laughable). If we keep this, then we are a directory of journals, just like we're a directory of high schools - indexed journals have become "inherently notable" even in the absence of sources about the journal.

For me, this is a real tension. If a subject fails WP:GNG due to lack of reliable independent sources, but passes a subject-specific guide and is kept on that basis, then WP:NOTDIR has to be marked as historical, because it no longer reflects consensus. And that is why I ask the question. As it stands, a group of editors interested in, say, academic journals, can write a subject-specific notability guideline that has no reference at all to canonical policy, and use this to keep articles. This is fine as long as we are now a directory. Guy (Help!) 10:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Well but can't we be a directory in some ways and for some things and not for others? Some of the examples given in WP:NOTDIRECTORY I can see us wanting to avoid -- "Sales catalogue" and "Genealogical entries" and so forth. On the other hand, being more or less a sort of directory of scientific journals -- even very obscure ones! -- and valid secondary-degree-granting institutions (even very obscure ones) could fit into our mission, because these are a little more "serious" or "scholarly" maybe, or otherwise considered a useful oexception to WP:NOTDIRECTORY, even if only worthwhile for the sake of completeness. Herostratus (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOT is a deletionist's holiest totem, but I've never seen anything more in need of a harsh edit on Wikipedia. It's a mishmash of policies - some of the utmost importance, like "NOT#CENSORED", some that are utterly insignificant and misinterpreted in sabotagey ways. All points, good or bad, suffer from the stilted format of saying "Wikipedia is not..." rather than just being written like a policy from the top down. I also think that the roundabout expedient of writing a vanity notability guideline is unnecessary and undesirable. It makes more sense to make a rule simply that if a class is fully enumerable (we can list all the known members based on some reference), and most of the members are notable, and the class is notable, then we can treat all the members as notable in order to fill it out fully. (That falls a bit short of some kinds of "directory" in that a proper directory will take a stab at lists that are not enumerable or based on original criteria) Wnt (talk) 03:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Top 25 Report, November 13 to 19, 2016 - hurtful slander

I know that the "Top 25 Report" is outside the mainspace and that editors don't have to adhere to NPOV, but I take issue at how an editor is describing Steve Bannon in particular, calling him "racist, anti-Semitic, misogynistic". This is not only an extreme case of POV, but it is also slanderous and hurtful. I don't care (nor does it matter) what you or anyone else thinks of Bannon, in politics or as a person, but this slander is too extreme and hurtful for it to stay. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

(EC)I suppose that The Top 25 Report, because of its newsletter format, does not have to cite sources or write in the format "Sources x, y, and z consider Bannon to be racist, anti-Semitic, and misogynistic." That is a common opinion that is often expressed in the mainstream media, though probably not in the alt-right media. Just checking to be sure: Are you stating that Bannon is not racist, anti-Semitic, and misogynistic? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Re "because of its newsletter format" – That does not exempt it from WP:BLP, which applies to all pages in Wikpedia. See below. --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Smallbones, this discussion is obviously reached its end, but just to be clear, whether Bannon is racist, anti-Semitic, etc. is completely besides the point and for a different discussion off-Wiki. Bob K31416 is correct in noting that BLP applies here. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? It's perfectly accurate and is evidenced by his own remarks and Breitbart's articles. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 04:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Re "It's perfectly accurate" – That is a conclusion of a Wikipedia editor about a contentious issue regarding a living person and a violation of WP:BLP, and should be redacted. See below. --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The item may be a violation of WP:BLP, which applies to all pages in Wikipedia. Here are some excerpts from that policy.

"Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page."

"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

"This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages."

References

--Bob K31416 (talk) 09:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Please see 10 of Breitbart's most incendiary headlines. Bannon was in charge of the company that produced those headlines. He could have stopped the printing of that garbage but didn't. I don't think anybody should be censored who is just stating the obvious. It is just not "Contentious material" to say that Bannon holds certain views. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 10:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• Whilst I wouldn't piss on Bannon if he was on fire, BLP does apply, so how about this - change "the racist, anti-Semitic, misogynistic head of Breitbart News" to "the head of the racist, anti-Semitic, misogynistic Breitbart News". Voila! No BLP issue. Black Kite (talk) 10:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I made the edit. [38] --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Still better, when a claim is this contentious and negative, to actually site the source in the claim, not just in footnotes. "...which has been called racist, anti-Semitics, and misogynistic by the New York Times and other major media sources like the BBC, NBC News, etc." The point here is to maintain clarity for the reader that Wikipedia itself is not taking an editorial line.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, clarity is much needed on that page. Many readers, including myself at first, thought that Wikipedia was taking an editorial stance in that page. I like Jimbo's suggestion, and we should also consider adding a tag at the top informing the reader that the views expressed on that page are not Wikipedia's stances. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I tried to find where the NY Times called Breitbart that and it looks like they didn't, but rather reported that critics called Breitbart that. For example,

"Critics, including some conservatives formerly associated with it, have denounced Breitbart in its current incarnation as a hate site steeped in misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, white nationalism and anti-Semitism."[39]

So the better modification along the lines of what you're suggesting might be, "...which has been called racist, anti-Semitic, and misogynistic by critics." --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

That's an even better proposal. It would be best if the Top 25 Report adhered to NPOV. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

What happens when you violate the orthodoxy

Hear ye, hear ye, the burning will be later today. Whosoever dares to state observations contrary to the Orthodoxopedia, they shall be banned forever as an example to all other editors who may be considering voicing their observations.

For editing with respect to policy and reliable sources, for discussing content on talk pages, and for voicing general observations about Wikipedia on this Jimbo's talk page, one editor who refuses to shut up will probably be banned from editing.

This is how one constructs a "consensus" reality. Stop those from speaking who do not share the desired opinions. These meta-issues need some examination, but when those who examine them are banned (first for 5 days, then one month, and now probably for one year) then you see what that is? It's a purging of dissent. It's an inquisition mentality. It's a McCarthyism. And it's so Kafka-esque that even saying these things is held to be a crime. Sort of like "What are you arresting me for, officer?" "For resisting arrest!"

You are all invited to the burning to witness the purging. And they will even say that my speaking this is heresy. Observe and think for yourselves. They desire subservience. You know what happened to Galileo.

SageRad (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you thinking of Giordano Bruno? Brunton (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, either one, Brunton. Thank you for the new knowledge! SageRad (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this note here SageRad. I am following your case for the reasons mentioned, though I have nothing to add since you and I have never crossed paths (though I've met many of those trying to get you banned). Good luck, (and congratulations), I hope you'll educate your child well concerning Wikipedia and will be able to tell him/her that Wikipedia was able to change without lopping off the heads of everyone who dares oppose Henry VIII. (to understand this reference you have to read the case) SashiRolls (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Just want to add that it's kids that often make us realize our own mortality, and start to make us think about what things will become after we're gone. Wikipedia looks like it's here to say with its excellent SEO (search-engine optimization): and I've read JW saying that he doesn't want Wikipedia to become a univocal monolith. I also notice that one of the people trying to get you banned has on their user-page a proud reference to being the last admin that he ... well, never mind. Not my onions. SashiRolls (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Onions? Please speak out, User:SashiRolls, don't mumble. I didn't put the note on my page (my talkpage actually), another editor did as a barnstar, but I'm well enough pleased with it. See also WP:BLOCKABDICATE. Bishonen | talk 19:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC).

Sorry that is a bit obscure. "pas mes oignons" is an expression meaning "pas mes affaires" (none of my bidness). I appreciate your transparency. As I said below "smear s(m)ells," this is not a smear attack. I just think it's important to identify the actors, and I think you are the person proposing the sentence. As a newbie (yes, relatively speaking), I'm just learning to identify the actors. SashiRolls (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Never mind the onions, SashiRolls, they're not the point, the sentence "one of the people trying to get you banned has on their user-page a proud reference to being the last admin that he ... well, never mind" is the point. Please don't peter out into a mumble, and don't sidetrack to the onions. My point was that when you attack people, the least you can do is name them. Even ping them, if you're feeling really transparent today. Didn't care for me to see this, perhaps? Bishonen | talk 19:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC).

You can view things that way if you like, the truth is that I assumed you would see it and was worried I would walk into some odd trap or another, because some names can not be uttered (outered, etc.), as you know. This is why many who propose non-"mainstream" RS from time to time have learned to mumble, it is a Wikipedia-induced speech impediment. Sometimes. Peace.SashiRolls (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Why would Jimbo ever have to ban any editor ever again, when any one of his several hundred best friends among the sysops can take care of it for him with little if any oversight, in any controversial topic covered by AE? JerryRussell (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, good editor. I predict that my head will be lopped for speaking the unspeakable. I strongly think that to go on a good path, editors need to clearly define what is and what is not a "personal attack" and to ensure that it is possible to speak to patterns of content editing that are harmful to the encyclopedia, without getting beheaded for doing so. There is definitely an asymmetry in this regard, because there is a specific group who clearly do this with impunity to uphold the orthodoxy, but to speak even a whit about non-ideal editing patterns in the "other direction" proves to be grounds for pillory. This must be remedied. One must be able to say that an article appears to be owned or that there appears to be ongoing disruptive editing to distort content away from neutrality, without having their head lopped. The nature of power is thus, however. Raw power enforcing ideology always converges to these similar strategies, whether they are a royal/religious rule of a territory, or ideological control of a cyber domain. It's not so different in any case. I did experience firsthand ideological control of a country in Nepal, when the last king shut down the Internet and the Royal Army occupied the news media. And i saw the overthrow of this king, and even helped that process along through making things transparent. Would my effort on Wikipedia have a similar effect, i would be happy to "die" for the cause. We do need more people to speak instead of cowering, and we need solidarity regarding integrity at all levels to red-flag and punish impunity. SageRad (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

SageRad and SashiRolls, Holy guacamoly, are you two aware of the similarity in your names? --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Bob, your trivialization of the issues here is not the least bit funny.

Regarding Wikipedia's modality of solving content disputes by banning editors, the case of William Connolley and the Global Warming articles is very instructive. According to articles by Lawrence Solomon at Canada's National Post, Connolley was able to get some 2,000 editors blocked or banned from Wiki. (See Epoch Times for RS secondary sourcing.) The fact that I happen to agree with Connolley that global warming is a serious problem, is completely beside the point. The point is that there is real disagreement among reputable scientists and reputable sources. If you read Wikipedia, you're only getting one side of the story.

And it may be complained that these head-chopping metaphors are inappropriate; Wikipedia is only a website. Fair enough. But neither should the consequences of these bans be underestimated. There's an argument that these bans protect the project, and save time for volunteers who no longer have to slog through debates. But as SageRad points out, the effect is to create the appearance of a consensus, where really there is no consensus in the world at large. The real loser is the encyclopedia: thousands of editors banned means thousands of editors whose contributions are forfeited. And more importantly, real neutrality is lost. If the situation gets bad enough, Wikipedia becomes nothing more than damaged goods on the Internet. Or worse, Wiki could contribute to a situation like Nepal. Certainly it is possible for anti-democratic forces to attempt to damage sources such as Wikipedia as part of an overall plan to seize ideological control. Among those who are trying to block SageRad, I see a drumbeat asserting that Wikipedia is a "mainstream" encyclopedia. Actually, WP:MAINSTREAM and WP:SPOV were failed proposals which were never supported by consensus. What is policy is that Wikipedia is not censored. If Wikipedia is nothing more than another mainstream voice, I see no reason to volunteer to support it. The mainstream has enormous resources and does not need my help. JerryRussell (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, a slight variation in the name pattern. Possibly eschewing the more conforming SherryRussell, etc.? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Bob, thanks for your input on the RfC here. Sad that nobody has been willing to close that long expired and much debated thread neutrally. This election season on Wikipedia has made me realize with some amusement that RosaShills is an anagram of my user name. Names are not the point, though it's true that smear s(m)ells. SashiRolls (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, the Galileo gambit. Of which it is said:

It is not enough to wear the mantle of Galileo: that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right.

— Robert L. Park

Sage, your problem is that you refuse to allow the possibility that any conclusion other than yours could be right, or that anybody could come to a different conclusion other then through corruption or stupidity. That is why yo are probably going to end up banninated. Nothing to do with having an unpopular or non-mainstream opinion, and everything to do with your own behaviour. Guy (Help!) 18:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The above is absolutely wrong, because I do NOT have a line on "The Truth" nor EVER claim to be so special. The only thing I hold fiercely is that many points of view have potential validity which can be discussed in dialog with integrity.

Nice try, Guy, but your straw man doesn't resemble me enough to fool the audience who may know me enough to discern. Reliable sources and integrity of dialog are the only things I require. I do not hold to know what's true. I trouble others who do that, and that's why I am on the executioner's list. You know it. SageRad (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

And once again you use the word "integrity" as a synonym for giving you what you want. There's really nothing more to say. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Guy, all he's asking for is not to be slandered and banned. JerryRussell (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

If you have read the AE discussion and still think that, then you are naive to a very remarkable degree. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

SageRad, isn't this a better forum for your arguments? Count Iblis (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

This is Jimbo's talk page, and Guy's essay Wikipedia:Lunatic_charlatans is, therefore, highly relevant. A petition signed by >10,000 supporters at change.org called for fair treatment of alternative health providers at Wikipedia. Jimbo answered: If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals - that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately. What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse". It isn't. The top comment at change.org's website in reply to Jimbo was from Debby Vajda, LCSW, DCEP, President ACEP; and she said:

The editors responsible have offered an arcane and ever-changing list of excuses why peer-reviewed research published in American Psychological Association and other professional journals simply isn't good enough for Wikipedia.ty

The prestigious, peer-reviewed journal of the American Psychological Association, Review of General Psychology, published a review of the research related to energy psychology in 2012 which included the following summary: "A literature search identified 51 peer-reviewed papers that report or investigate clinical outcomes following the tapping of acupuncture points to address psychological issues. The 18 randomized controlled trials in this sample were critically evaluated for design quality, leading to the conclusion that they consistently demonstrated strong effect sizes and other positive statistical results that far exceed chance after relatively few treatment sessions. Criteria for evidence-based treatments proposed by Division 12 of the American Psychological Association were also applied and found to be met for a number of conditions, including PTSD and depression."

Additional research has appeared in the following professional journals: the Journal of Clinical Psychology, the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, Primary Care and Community Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, the Review of General Psychology, and Traumatology.

So what's going on here? Does Jimbo stand by his statement that practitioners such as Vajda are "Lunatic Charlatans", regardless of how much peer reviewed research she can point to? Or is Jimbo really the core problem here at Wikipedia? If this is his example of civility and NPOV, I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise that the rest of the organization follows his example. JerryRussell (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Vajda is an "energy psychotherapist" so... pretty much, yes. And she's taking that review wildly out of context as is par for the course in fringe circles. Capeo (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Capeo, the review article is here: Acupoint_Stimulation_Research_Review.pdf. I don't see any misrepresentation at all in Vajda's quote. It's taken straight from the abstract, which accurately represents the content of the paper and its conclusions as far as I can see. JerryRussell (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

That 2012 review article by Feinstein was mentioned in Wikipedia in the last paragraph of section Emotional Freedom Techniques#Reception and here's the excerpt:

"Feinstein published another review in 2012, concluding that energy psychology techniques "consistently demonstrated strong effect sizes and other positive statistical results that far exceed chance after relatively few treatment sessions". This review was also criticized, where again it was noted that Feinstein dismissed higher quality studies which showed no effects of EFT, in favor of methodologically weaker studies which did show a positive effect."

References

--Bob K31416 (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

That sounds fair enough. So I can't fault Wiki's coverage in this case. A methodological disagreement. But, what ever happened to "lunatic charlatans"? JerryRussell (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Whatever one wants to call them, my glimpse here into that world doesn't look good. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I looked at the edit history on that page and found that the Feinstein reference was introduced into the article in April 2014, right after the public exchange between Jimbo and Vajda. So, Vajda's criticism would have been valid as of the date she raised it. Yeah, I wouldn't hire an EFT therapist. I can't bring myself to believe, so no placebo effect or "faith healing" for me. JerryRussell (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I looked at the archives from March 2014 and was amazed to find that not a single editor at the time called Jimbo out for a lack of civility. Now, it might very well be that sources such as those cited by Vajda don't meet MEDRS. I also understand that placebo effects might be the entire explanation for the apparent successes described in those sources. If that's the mainstream point of view, of course Wikipedia articles should say so. But if MEDRS is preventing any citation of sources such as Vajda listed from even being mentioned in Wiki articles, then MEDRS is a big problem here. Wikipedia is only discrediting itself by trumpeting its reliance on peer-reviewed science, and then selectively rejecting results from that literature in a way that's obvious to anyone who takes the time to research. And no matter what the truth is, the phrase "Lunatic Charlatans" is an obvious attack on the personal integrity as well as the intelligence of practitioners, and is obviously incompatible with BLP.

Jimbo, any response?? JerryRussell (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

"Energy psychology" is bullshit. EFT is just distraction therapy, there is no evidence whatsoever that the location of magic tapping makes any difference whatsoever, and even less evidence that so-called acupoints have any connection to the real world. That's the reality-based consensus view, which Wikipedia follows. Of course True Believers will engage in endless pseudoscience to try to prove their beliefs true, but it is pseudoscience precisely because they are trying to validate a belief rather than test it. Guy (Help!) 21:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The only thing I would argue with is "lunatic". People who have worked out effective methods of making money from the sick by "prescribing" nonsense therapies that do not work are clearly not mentally deranged. They are, however, a lot of other things, including "charlatans". The very definition of the word shows its accuracy - "a person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill". Black Kite (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

So what if EFT is just another form of "distraction therapy"? The paper cited above doesn't make any claims about the location of the magic tapping points. All it says is that empirically, the therapy works. (It does speculate that there could be a neural mechanism, but has very little to say about any specifics.)

Maybe psychotherapy (and alternative medicine), in general, is the art of inducing a placebo effect? And maybe it works better if the practitioners also believe it works? Is that any different from religion, and would you dismiss all religious feelings as "bullshit"? JerryRussell (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but such an effect can be put to the test. Count Iblis (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Religious feelings" is not a synonym for "faith healing." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I think most religious people would accept the idea that it's a good idea to breathe oxygen regularly. Not all religious people believe in faith healing, but some do. And maybe EFT is just another form of that. I'm not sure if Vajda or Feinstein would be insulted if someone said so. But I doubt if insults like "lunatic charlatan" or "bullshit" are going to convince anyone. JerryRussell (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

All this talk of climate change denial and such other things is a bit distracting. A thing like Misophonia seems to be what triggered Jytdog to bring this request, and there on the talk page I presented the latest MEDRS sources (recent review articles) and Jytdog seemed unbelievably to not want the article to use the word "condition" to describe misophonia (which is a condition). That went on unbearably long, and I did NOT force it in the article or edit war, but kept on with dialog to get the content right (our main mission here).

That is the sort of thing that I think keeps the encyclopaedia from reaching optimal goodness, and in many cases keeps content stuck in local maximums that are not NPOV.

Please see the nuance of what I am saying! This is not about climate change denial or quackery. This is about integrity in representing excellent sources properly, and without ideology or bias. SageRad (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry SageRad, I didn't mean to put you in the same bucket with those others. But I do think Wiki's treatment of literally thousands of dissenting editors, as well as the lack of civility towards "quackery", is entirely relevant to the discussion. Yes, Wiki does need some mechanism for dealing with problem editors. But, I suspect that you're not the only good-faith editor who has ever been threatened with a ban for being a dissenting voice from the "consensus". JerryRussell (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia serves a very useful purpose as the place to get a quick overview of complex topics, with much more in-depth material if wanted. However, I would not want to spend time reading an article and find out later that it promoted the views of a dissenting voice from the consensus. I can use Google to find the opinions of random people—if I want to learn something about a topic, I want to know the current mainstream view—the boring view that is based on evidence. It is interesting to read about notable pseudoscientific topics or non-orthodox views, but they must be clearly identified as not being part of evidence-based knowledge. Johnuniq (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The Shirelles

Today a Wikipedia user moved without gaining any community consensus and also going against Wikipedia policy the song category for the Shirelles and several of their songs by removing "The" from its proper name usage. Their explanation for such a move is unacceptable. This message could have been addressed on the administrators page, but a continuous cycle of such behavior of radical moves concerning the particular user in question will not cease to exist through such matters of protocol, so by appeal it is brought here. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Early Whirly Birdie (talk • contribs) 22:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Would someone fluent in both Admin and Very Literal please come translate?

So, I appealed an AE indef block at ARCA. The first ArbCom respondent said "To get unblocked, agree to these conditions," and I keep saying what sounds like "yes" to me. I also want them to tell me exactly why I was topic-banned in the first place because apparently the things the enforcing admin said to me in February were ...wrong? ...not meant to be taken at face value? ...something else? One member of Arbcom says the problem is my "inability to draw simple inferences." I see that as guessing. I don't want to have to guess what's expected of me, especially if I can get re-sanctioned for guessing wrong. I can think of several things it might be, but some of them are mutually exclusive and some are frankly less than flattering to certain parties and I'd rather not piss anyone off unnecessarily.

I didn't even know what "discretionary sanctions" were until last year. Half the reason I got sanctioned in the first place is because I didn't know what a voluntary ban was, or what exactly was meant by "broadly construed," and thought "1RR" meant "one talk page post per day." These are all solvable problems.

It's tempting to feel like they want to keep everything vague to make it easier to sanction some people but not others at personal discretion or that the thing they want me to agree to is something that they feel would make them look bad if they said it publicly. I know, right? But other things that looked off about this (checks watch) eleven-month-and-counting ordeal have turned out to have benign explanations, and maybe this does too. I wouldn't be surprised if >90% of this is communication.

Even if I get reblocked, I feel like I deserve a straight, hint/guess/inference-free answer about why and that one of the problems that made such a huge contribution to this mess, lack of clear guidelines for users targeted by extremely long complaints, should be solved. It's easily solvable. I'd feel a little better about this if I knew it was less likely to happen to the next person.

So if you know how the Arbitration Committee thinks, are familiar with their MO, and feel up to spelling it out for someone who isn't in an unbiased and dispassionate manner, I'd love it if you followed the link and did so. Happy post-Thanksgiving. May all your screaming be happy screaming. Like with kids. Who are happy because of snow and presents and stuff. It's late and I'm tired. Translation appreciated at ARCA. Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)