User talk:Jimbo Wales

I propose term limits for Wikipedia admins

Jimbo Wales: To the contrary of how disgruntled Wikipedia admins feel, I feel that your move of the Meghan, Duchess of Sussex title was highly insightful, knowledgeable, timely, decisive, basic common sense and the right move to make at the right time. I resent the public flaming, shaming, lynching and backlash against you from admins who don't have neither your knowledge, nor your insight, nor your intellect, and who can´t see beyond the tip of their nose.

Rules are made to serve Wikipedia not the other way around. Hundreds of low IQ, uninformed or not-sufficiently-informed arguments don't amount to doing what is right at the right moment.

I feel that Wikipedia has become a megalomaniacs cesspool of bureaucracy run by a very small percentage of arrogant, self-serving, basement-dwelling, liberal and dictatorial long term admins, and their protected darling editors, that have tarnished Wikipedia's image and severely weakened its status.

I believe that a healthy solution for Wikipedia would be to automatically rid Wikipedia of long term admins after 8 years without the possibility of ever becoming admins again. This way, the tyranny would be uprooted, and newer admins would feel free to rejuvenate, excel, inspire new improvements, and breathe new life into a declining Wikipedia, while giving Wikipedia a much higher level of respect and excellence, more donations (from millions of new individual donors) and a much higher credibility. Cheerio. Explorium (talk) 06:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

As a low IQ contributor myself I take exception to the suggestion that editors like me have little to offer the project. Bus stop (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why eight years? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Because whichever admin blocked the sockmaster passed their RFA eight years ago? ‑ Iridescent 2 10:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah right. So all admins who had served more than eight years would suddenly be banished, yes? I wonder could someone tell us what percentage that would be and how we'd actually fill the gap for such "self-serving, basement-dwelling, liberal and dictatorial" duties as dealing with vandalism? Admins all get tyrannical after 8 years do they? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates in the cyber world, which means that we have a lot more methods available compared to real world systems. What matters is whether the best decision is taken, not who is taking the decisions. By influencing who gets to call the shots, you are only indirectly affecting the decision making process. Note that Presidential term limits meant that Bill Clinton ended up being replaced by Bush and that Obama ended up being replaced by Trump, while poll results suggests that Bill and Obama would have won their third terms by a landslide.

It's far better to have a system where we don't care much about the people in charge, but where we have a robust review system to make sure that the decisions that are taken are the best. Most of the use of tools by Admins need not be implemented immediately, so one can imagine a system where anything besides emergency actions is always pending upon review by 3 other Admins who'll decide by majority voting. The 3 other Admins will be anonymous to each other and cannot see the votes that have already been cast. All they see is a list of requests for tasks and they can then weigh in on some of these items listed. Emergency use of tools is immediately implemented, but all such actions will appear on a list sent to ArbCom for review. Count Iblis (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• I take this chance to reiterate my perennial proposal: Give everyone the mop once they have 5000 edits and 5 years with a registered account and no blocks or sanctions.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Eat a dick. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Maunus Not everyone deserves the mop and bucket even after 5 years and 5000 edits. Not everyone wants it either.

Explorium I was part of one of the discussions and I voted for the current title. It was moved before consensus was reached which is not supposed to happen and that therefore caused someone to propose moving it back to the previous title so it created more work. Going from memory of what I saw in the discussions, it was the fact it was moved before consensus was reached that annoyed editors. If any of us did that we'd be asked to account for our actions.--5 albert square (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

It is not something that should be deserved, and if everyone has it it doesn't matter if you want it. You can just refrain from using it. We need more admins, not fewer. And it is not an honorary title, but a janitorial one.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

·maunus, Might I humbly suggest that you change your perennial proposal to "Offer everyone the mop..."? I would be rather pissed off if someone made me an admin without asking my permission first. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

You may. But your suggestion will be rejected. The point is that it is everyone's responsibility to keep our house clean.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, given the amount of editors that we have, I'd be surprised if this suggestion was possible.--5 albert square (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

IIRC, WMF's legal team says that adminship has to be granted only after a RFA-style process for legal reasons. Regards SoWhy 09:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

It's widely considered "best practices" among volunteer organizations for directors to take a sabbatical from time to time, e.g. 4 years. [1] This is somewhat analogous, and it's not such a bad idea that it should be dismissed out of hand. SPECIFICO talk 15:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with the original post. I have often wondered why administrators are given a lifetime position as admins. People and life circumstances, as well as cognitive abilities, mental health, scruples, values, and attitudes evolve - and in some cases, deteriorate. An individual who was given the mop 15 years ago when Wikipedia was quite new is very likely not the same individual who was granted their RFA. Wikipedia isn't the same place 15 years later, either. Perhaps require a re-election every three or four years? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Reconfirm administrators. Regards SoWhy 16:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose There are issues with Admins, this is not going to revolve the worst examples. In fact if anything the one I think is the biggest issue (cliques of eds who support reach other whenever they are before the beak) will not only not be undermined but made worse.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Jimbo Wales: My original post was meant for you alone. But it's all cool. In conclusion, I feel that the "sex of angels" discussion at AN, and at MRV strongly reinforces my original point. It's past time to swiftly and decisively Drain the liberal, bureaucratic and melodramatic admin Swamp, and replace it with a fresh, rejuvinated, unbiased, and higher level of intellectual competence, a "think out of the Rules box" perspective, "understand the Founder's overall vision for Wikipedia in a dynamic and ever changing cyberspace" and basic common sense (for instance, a thorough and comprehensive understanding of the royal family for starters). I will take a moment to agree with your saying "It was fun to do"... The "cushy and comfy" long term admins are having a thermonuclear snowflake meltdown, and now they seem to want to impeach you simply for making them cry. Well, this sure has helped the scum to come to the surface, and it sure was fun. #DrainTheSwamp. Cheers, mate. Explorium (talk) 01:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

While the Admin corps are human, and will err, the criteria for being an admin is not the same as a politician. We don't reelect admins. We elect ArbCom, because ArbCom are essentially the only office of state on Wikipedia - a court, essentially, although that's a huge simplification. Admins are the civil service. The role of an administrator is to be experienced and well versed in Wikipedia policy. Popularity and intelligence doesn't come into it. Certainly, they shouldn't use their powers to bias an issue. In my experience, they don't. In a discussion, an administrator has the weight of a normal editor. Yet they tend to be the most insightful, experienced and communicative editors around. Any proposal to "drain the swamp" would result in catastrophe in current climes - we need more admins, not fewer. FYI, many of those complaining about the action were non-admins. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 02:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an "unbiased" person. By default, all humans have a bias, as do all fora made by same. There is no such thing as an "admin swamp" - if anything, it's more like a rapidly-drying admin puddle because we have had a dearth of admins for years now. The "intellectual competence" you imagine is apparently one that agrees with you. We already have admins and regular users willing to invoke out "outside-the-box" measures in the correct way, and they get stick for it from partisans like you. And the long-term admins are not "cushy and comfy" - most of them have been censured by ArbCom at least once. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that. However, should this proposal pass in a proper venue, I would like to volunteer to be one of the new class of admins, doing what I know is right without undue concern for rules. Who decides what is undue concern for rules? Why, I do, of course.
Q: Is every discussion worth the server space required to store it? ―Mandruss ☎ 06:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Let me tell you something. I meant this for Jimbo Wales, the Founder's eyes only. But I will set this straight due to its importance for Wikipedia's future. Sugar coating and covering-up for the Wikipedia admins swamp, and denying long standing observable facts that have given Wikipedia an extremely bad rap, is laughable, and it doesn't make it magically disappear.

The one and only thing that has kept Wikipedia afloat for so long is Google´s favoritism (which is a good thing, albeit being flagrantly biased). Let's be transparent, honest and not beat around the bush, Wikipedia has a severe chronic infestation problem, and it's high time to #DrainTheSwamp swiftly, decisively, and once for all, as I stated before. No admin should be allowed to serve more than 8 years. Term limits are not the all-around perfect solution, nothing ever is, but they sure beat bureaucracy, stagnation, mold, arrogance, freaking out (rings a bell?) and megalomania of the 'very comfortable and secure' gang of old admins anytime, and they breathe new life and infuse a breath of fresh Spring air into a moldy Wikipedia.

Wikipedia should never have to beg for donations. The Founder, IMHO, was a genius to create it. Wikipedia is still the greatest online encyclopedia ever, not because of the cesspool of old admins, but in spite of them.

Get rid of the old (8+ years), moldy, liberal, extremely biased, untouchable, passive-aggressive, instigating, sneaky, underhanded, manipulative, antagonistic, grumpy and offensive admins and their darling editors today, and millions of people will slowly start to return, gain new confidence, and be inspired to donate regularly (I mean those of us who have real jobs and money to donate, and don't need to live in mommy's moldy basement) as they would start to feel like being a welcome part of the encyclopedia, not just the other disposable insignificant guy who doesn't fit the 'mold' of a 'Wikipedian that fits their mold'.

Copying and pasting a welcome to Wikipedia template is good, but it's quickly undermined upon ganging up and chewing the head of the other guy by a gang of unsung internet warriors and vicious hyenas. That leaves a very bitter taste in the mouth of millions of people who never forgive, forget or donate... or even return after being driven away. It is an established fact that the cesspool of old admins has driven away many good people 'who don't fit their mold' and would never return.

Draining the admin Swamp most certainly won't cause a catastrophe. That's just a melodramatic fear tactic and a fabricated crisis. We can easily see through that... It is long overdue. And yes, admins shamelessly, and underhandedly, control what goes into the encyclopedia. The cesspool of admins and their protected editors is infamous of mercilessly ganging up on the other guy and reversing his or her contribution.

Now, I am perplexed by the never ending, continued and relentless freaking out, melodramatic outrage, ankle biting, flaming, lynching, defaming and undermining the Founder, Over what? He obviously provided a very compelling and highly astute justification, that they obviously still don't get (low IQ). To date, they are still freaking out and mindlessly ankle biting him quoting what was obviously pure sarcasm (it's fun to do so), at least to folks like me with a sense of humor and a brain, ignoring the solid insightful, and basic common sense argument he certainly made.

On Notability alone, billions of people, including yours truly, had never even heard of a Meghan Markle (or what a Meghan Markle was) until she got involved with the Duke of Sussex, and even then she didn't strike many as notable, until her fairytale royal wedding, and becoming the Dutchess of Sussex, wife of the Duke of Sussex. Now, we all know her as the Dutchess of Sussex. Explorium (talk) 06:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to admit that I don't know her at all. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

This talk page, as noted at the top, has a lot of eyes on it that aren't Jimbo, and it's normal for other editors to jump in and explain why they are in favour of/against any given topic someone may talk to Jimbo about, especially if they are using populist/Republican dog-whistles (by the by WP:ARBAP2 is still in force) and complaining about the controversial Wikipedia topic du jour. Jimbo may be the founder, but nowadays he has literally no power to overrule consensus across the entire project, in part because of (perceived) unilateral actions such as this one that were ill-thought-out and cost him a fair amount of goodwill. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 06:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo acted contrary to move policy. For many regular editors at that article that was extremely frustrating. But just because some admins have recognised that frustration, I don't see that makes them "scum" who are having a "thermonuclear snowflake meltdown" in an "undrained cesspool swamp". Reform of admin tenure may be a valid topic which merits widespread discussion, but I don't see the Meghan Markle debacle as the most useful starting point. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Never have we seen such a Skive of Hum and Villainy.Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship has the history of the various attempt to break the (in my view) stranglehold the lifetime adminship empowerment enables. I worked on WP:CDA which failed because (again, in my view) the admin vote killed it. That was over eight years ago, and here we are. Cheers. Jusdafax (talk) 09:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• @Explorium: If you could edit under your previous account, that would be greatly appreciated. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

  What previous account? Unlike others, I only have one account, a real life and a real job. If you stop your baseless speculations deflecting from the topic, and take the time to read the important matter at hand of term limits for overbearing long-term admins and their chorus of darling cheerleaders, that will make Wikipedia a less of a venomous and instigating swamp, and more welcoming to all, you may become part of the solution. That would be greatly appreciated, mate. Cheerio. Explorium (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

  Have you considered the possibility that it is just human nature for personalities to become entrenched in systems and for interpersonal relationships to develop? I understand that you are trying to tweak the system but what about some of the counterarguments that have been presented, such as the expertise that is developed through experience: "Admins., like bricklayers, or architects, get more experienced and usually better with time, since the job really does employ a number of particular skills like technical, communicative and analytical; not to mention consultative, mediative and creative, all of which usually improve with time, as well as the ability to draw on extreme objectivity..."[2] Bus stop (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• I propose an eight year term limit for Wikipedia editors, lowered to five for those who regularly comment on this page. Gamaliel (talk) 12:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

  How about a points system? You start with 100 points and for each edit here, you lose one. When you have 0 points, you are blocked for a year. Regards SoWhy 16:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

  Says the person commenting on this page. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

  He's taking a hit for the team...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

  Exactly! 98 points remaining... Damn! SoWhy 20:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Admins., like bricklayers, or architects, get more experienced and usually better with time, since the job really does employ a number of particular skills like technical, communicative and analytical; not to mention consultative, mediative and creative, all of which usually improve with time, as well as the ability to draw on extreme objectivity (which is 1 of the reasons I would not qualify). So it would be silly to get rid of your bricklayers or architects after 8 or 20 years. The whole janitorial analogy is just an example of the humility which often accompanies unpaid volunteer work and maybe a sort of geeky humour which I don't even understand, but still find kinda cool. They are definitely not selfish, close minded or over bearing people (like many or most politicians who it would be a good idea to put on term limits). Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Jimbo Wales: My head is being chewed (so much for the boiler plate Welcome), and I´m being threatened with a block on my talk page by an instigating and patronizing long term admin swamp creature who is proving my points. To him, I am so insignificant and disposable that he can just block me. So be it. He will Wikipedia honor kill me under his Blasphemy rules, but the cause, shared by the silent majority, will survive. I predict that he and the long term admin swamp (with more than 8 years of janitorial service believing they're kings and queens of the jungle) will be thrown out of Wikipedia with no possibility of return. Cheerio.Explorium (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Read the message on your talk page Explorium. NeilN has threatened you with a block because you have been attacking other editors. Attacking other editors is not acceptable and if you do attack editors then yes you can expect to be blocked. Your comment above to me has come across as trying to stir the pot and cause trouble.--5 albert square (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support for sabbatical, not for this proposalLet me start by saying I trust it's a coincidence I'm coming up on my eighth anniversary as an admin (does that mean I have a COI?). @Explorium: If you mean something to be for one individual's eyes only, use email not a public forum. I agree with @SPECIFICO: That an occasional sabbatical is a good idea. I note that the OP idea is to remove the mop after eight years and never get it back again. That's a nonstarter, but there may be value in an enforced timeout for a limited period of time.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The OP provides zero evidence that administrators with more than eight years of service are less fit than those with less than eight years of service. Instead, we are subjected to a stream of bitter invective blended with right wing tropes. I have been an administrator for a bit less than a year, so this proposal would give me seven years to wreak havoc if I was so inclined. Instead, I will focus on improving and protecting the encyclopedia, as opposed to the OP, who trolls for lulz. Most administrators here do very good work, and this proposal would damage the encyclopedia rather than helping it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Jimbo Wales: Let me set the record straight. Saying that the long term admin swamp is a disgrace and liability to Wikipedia isn't attacking the swamp... It's describing it, and their darling cheerleaders are quick to gang up and lynch me... Explorium (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

  I am by no means a "darling cheerleader" for the admin corps. I would love the admin corps a lot more if they weren't automatically CRASH cops. I do know that it is a thankless job that sees you relentlessly attacked whenever you take an action that not everyone agrees with, especially so if you work in arbitration enforcement (and, again, WP:ARBAP2 remains in effect). How do I know this? From experience and from observing the bullshit that good admins like User:Future Perfect at Sunrise and User:NeilN get from hyperpartisan editors who don't give a fuck about neutrality, sourcing, or being civil. A description which rather aptly fits yourself. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• Now feeling torn between welcoming back old admins and letting Jimbo do it all himself. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

And looking at your talk page, NeilN didn't say it was anything on this talk page. He referred to article talk pages. I suspect it was something like this edit that he was referring to.--5 albert square (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, you're such a good helper, even when uninvited, and an Awesome Wikipedian. You strive to prove all my points and buttress my accurate description of the admin Swamp. Cheers.Explorium (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Rich words from someone who's throwing out dog-whistles and generally behaving like an ass. If you had a point, your refusal to tone down the rhetoric has long since destroyed it. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• Intriguing. Despite obviously trolling, the fact that Explorium is calling out long-term admins is suggesting that they're all now INVOLVED and can't block him. It's certainly an interesting approach. Black Kite (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

If Explorium really feels that removing the admin corps is preferable to having a skeleton crew, then by all means I suggest to him that he stops posting here, asks for the mop, and begins working immediately at WP:Arbitration/Enforcement, Category:Requests for unblock, and WP:AN3. And that the moment he blows his top at someone he disagrees with, he blocks himself and resigns the mop. But I wager he won't, because he only cares about pissing people off, not actually being part of any real solution. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Create copies of Wikipedia operating under slightly different rules and policies

Many rules we have here are not ideal but are de-facto set in stone, because they have a strong core level of support making it impossible to get to a consensus on how to improve things. It took a huge effort to get rid of "not truth" in WP:V and the RFC on de-adminship failed to get sufficient support. Note that in such cases there is a strong consensus that the status quo is not ideal. One can deal with this problem by making copies of Wikipedia that operate under slightly different rules and a different set of Admins and Arbitrators who uphold the different rules on the different Wikipedias. The "official version" of Wikipedia is then compiled from the copies, for each article editors choose the best from the different copies for inclusion in the official version. The official version is the only version that's live on the Internet, the other versions are only visible after logging in. The live version can be directly edited without logging in, such edits then affect the version from the Wikipedia it is taken. To edit the other versions and voting on which article version becomes the official version requires logging in.

The creation of a copy is subject to rules, e.g. one can implement the rule that there are 8 Wikipedias in total, that the 4 Wikipedias that produce the least articles in the official version die every year, while the other 4 make copies of themselves. After copying, one version keeps its old rules while the other version can change the rules based on simple majority voting instead of the usual consensus requirement for change. The time period for majority voting is limited, say, one month. Count Iblis (talk) 10:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

They already exist, just not run by the Wikipedia foundation. I see no reason why we should water down our polices by the back door because some think Wikipedia is biased because it has rules that prevent them form having their facts here. Also the idea of "flexible rules" worries me, we have enough battlegrounding over POV as it is (and plenty of invoking of IAR when convincing) to make this utterly unworkable.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Also if there is a dirty commie rat bias here on Wikipedia who is going to win most of those votes? Thus "Barack Obama, the most wonderful man who ever lives" sources to "Barry my life as the most wonderful man who has ever lived" is sourced to an RS whilst "Donald Trump is not a child eating monster" is rejected even though the BBC, WP, NTY, CNN all have said it is false because they are not RS for this. Maybe this is an extreme example (I am not that sure) but this is what will happen, assuming this stinking lefty bias.Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The royal powers, stops here.

Queen Elizabeth II, may well have bestowed the title of Duke of Sussex upon her grandson Harry/Henry, thus making his wife Duchess of Sussex. But she has no such powers on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 00:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I must say that it has been quite some time since I've seen nearly so much climbing of the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I wrote that in gentler days. I wish we could get back to that kind of sense of perspective. Guy (Help!) 07:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia don't, however, have the power to unmake her the Duchess of Sussex. Bizarre an episode as I have seen on the site. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 08:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Now, now, nothing done with our article title makes or unmakes her, anything. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course not, but then she does not have the power to demand we call her Queen Elizabeth II, so why do we (in fact why do we call anyone by a name or title, they have no legal authority, why not call Barak Obama "jug ears" Or Barry, after all his name is not legally binding).Slatersteven (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Private Eye calls her Brenda (after one of the better known lookalikes), but our article is actually Elizabeth II, in keeping with the classical mononymic style of monarchs. Perhaps it should have of England appended, per Elizabeth I of England or Beatrix of the Netherlands. Some of us are not exactly enthralled by the prospect of monarchy, but in the current political climate it does look more attractive than it used to. Imagine President BoJo. But nobody would elect a wild-haired narcissistic philandering clown to high office, so this may be a weak argument. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Would be a popular move with Leanne Wood, amongst many others. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

But we still (in essence) user he title. I wonder if Harry ever become king will we have this debate about his wife being called Queen Megan? Indeed her husband is called Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, it seems very very odd that some many people are opposed to her be given the same honourific.Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The title Duke of Sussex, has also been forbidden from Harry's article name. GoodDay (talk) 10:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Guy, surely of the UK not England, since 1603. Slatersteven, the debate will be about Queen Camilla. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 09:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

neither IS Canada. You mean Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, nope not seeing any debate about her royal status.Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I doubt Camilla will ever be queen, Charles is divisive enough - the firm will be hoping to get Wills and Kate on the throne ASAP to keep the republicans from the gates. RichardWeiss, I find the term "United Kingdom" hard to use these days, since (a) there's no king and (b) there's no unity :-) Guy (Help!) 09:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

You mean Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge.Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@RichardWeiss: You mean since 1800, right? England and Scotland were separate kingdoms with a common monarch until the Acts of Union 1707/1708, then the Kingdom of Great Britain until the 1800 Acts of Union establish the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. GoldenRing (talk) 11:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Eventually, Prince Harry & Meghan Markle will be moved (successfully) to Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex & Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, as they should be. GoodDay (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Come the revolution mate, they'll be moved again, don't worry. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, in the meantime, perhaps some retail therapy for me, like these Meghan Markle sandals [3], lovely, and perhaps we'll even forget who that is while wearing them, although they do not seem useful for climbing. :) Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

...The Reichstag dressed up...  ;) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

To address the substantive issue, it is long-settled policy (though somewhat imperfectly practised) that for royals and peers, the articles tend to be at a more formal name than COMMONNAME would seem to suggest. There are good reasons for this, and COMMONNAME is not a first principle of Wikipedia, never has been. It's one of the things that we consider in article naming conventions and in most cases, it's the only thing we consider because it's the only thing meaningfully worth considering.

One of the worst misconceptions of COMMONNAME, though, is that we have to wait until the "Google count" of mentions shifts, rather than accepting that someone's name has changed. I remember a bit of a silly dustup around Chelsea Manning's name that was related to this.

Just to give one example where we've got it right, despite a "Google count" approach suggesting another answer, is Diana, Princess of Wales. Go to Google and see how many news sources call her "Princess Diana". And not just American ones, who could be forgiven for getting it wrong. We don't bow down to tabloids who can't get a basic name and title combination right, even while we do look at COMMONNAME as a factor.

Let me pick a random peer (and a big sad face to anyone who makes any drama at her page!). I chose her by looking down an alphabetical list of peers at the House of Lords website and finding one I hadn't personally ever heard of: Joyce Anelay, Baroness Anelay of St Johns. COMMONANME would suggest, I think, after only a brief investigation of news sources, that we should call her "Baroness Joyce Anelay" - but this would be inconsistent with how we name other peers, and so we don't. We use the slightly more formal format which is also technically more correct, since the "of St Johns" in her case forms an integral part of her actual legal name and serves, by design, as a disambiguator in case there is ever a different title Anelay.

Anyway, I can bore on for hours, but the point is: a lot of thought has been put into the matter by people who have considered many angles, and policy has been settled for a long time that COMMONNAME is not a writ from heaven.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Hours? Yoo hoo. But, it appears you mis-remember Chelsea Manning: the admin who jumped out ahead in the move was disciplined and the rule adopted was to wait for the change in RS. (And I supported Chelsea in both discussions with RS for "Chelsea Manning", so bring the RS). This peerage thing (in article title) is apparently really important to you (so important you can't let people even discuss it through, first), but can't you understand why it's not that important (enough to cut-off discussion first) to many, many, many other editors and readers? And perhaps you can find your way to acknowledge the fact that no, Wikipedia does not title all such articles that way? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about what you are saying here. Wikipedia does title articles in the way that I described. (Check the listings for the members of the House of Lords - almost all of them are titled according to their actual title, and I think that's a good thing.) When you say it's apparently really important to me, I think you're mistaken. It isn't. And I certainly don't think cutting off discussion of it is a good idea, and I'm not sure why you came the conclusion that I would think that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Jimmy, that would be a perfectly valid contribution to the discussion that was ongoing at the time of your move and I'm sure it would have been welcomed. But surely you could see that one editor swooping in and moving the article unilaterally (much less an admin editing through protection; much less you, the founder, who simultaneously enjoys no special status and every special status) was only going to cause unnecessary drama? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I think we should have a lot less drama about such things. People should be bold and do the right thing, and people should not tie themselves in knots over it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The 'Harry' & 'Meghan' articles are two cases of WP:COMMONNAME going 'too far'. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Speaking generally, Jimbo is incorrect in saying editors will 'wait until the "Google count" of mentions shifts'. From the move discussions I've read over the years, editors are well aware of the WP:NAMECHANGES policy which states, "...we give extra weight to sources written after the name change is announced. If the sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say that people wait until the Google count of mentions shifts. Sorry if I was unclear. I was making the point that the argument does surface fairly regularly and it isn't consistent with policy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Idea

I've been an administrator, mediator and bureaucrat here for over a decade and I don't think I've ever written on Jimbo's talk page (maybe once or twice). Anyway, I've just gotten my first topic ban from Donald Trump. Sure, I deserved it, but there are about 10 more editors violating policies and having conflicts of interest routinely in order to whitewash the article of seemingly anti-Trump material. The admins presiding over the pages aren't doing anything about it. Since you recently stepped in to unilaterally move Meghan Markle, what about swinging by the American politics pages and doing a bunch of drive-by banning/blocking? Andrevan@ 18:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom could pass a motion on imposing general sanctions on pages related to Trump. Count Iblis (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Err...they could also pass a motion preventing JW from doing anything "drive-by :D —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 19:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I certainly didn't intend to cause any dustup in the case of Meghan Markle - just to do the right thing as a bit of fun. I remember when it used to be ok to do the right thing at Wikipedia and have some fun with it.  :-) Now, as to the Trump situation, I think I'll steer very far from it for now. Happy to have a long read at some point to see what I think, but.... I generally believe that editors should mostly stay away from situations or topics that are very emotional for them, and I can get quite emotional about Donald Trump. It would be a lot of work for me personally to write in a neutral way about him, because he upsets me so much.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)