User talk:Jimbo Wales

New paid editing scandal - How many more will there be until we take serious action?

In case folks missed it, see

• Wikipedia blocks hundreds of paid socks (story at Arstechnica).
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Orangemoody long-term abuse case and COI cases
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse.2FOrangemoody
• WMF blogun
• Tech Crunch
• Fusion

One thing that is particularly notable here is the repeated use of the term "extortion" e.g. "charging prices of roughly $30 a month for what amounts to a protection and extortion racket" in Fusion.

What is described certainly strikes me as extortion or racketeering but I don't think anybody directly involved in the banning of the socks has used either term yet.

I'm sure there will be more soon. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, what can we do? This will always happen, unfortunately, this is just a side of Wikipedia. Maybe if we were more friendly to users with COI's and had a proper introductions shown to people as soon as they registered, then maybe disclosure would be more common. Of course, many people don't get how Wikipedia works, so unfortunately, even the above cannot combat the issue. Mdann52 (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

We could certainly publicize our rules better, let businesses know that their advertising and other forms of advocacy are not welcome. But just throwing up your hands and saying "what can we do?" strikes me as giving up the ship, saying we don't have rules against advertising, just write anything you want folks without any supervision or oversight. The people running the scams described certainly knew of our rules and went to great lengths to avoid detection. Being more friendly to extortionists doesn't impress me as a workable option. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The fact these rackets do, and will continue to do, shows that whatever rules we give etc., we can't really stop them completely, just stem the tide. The being friendly refers to the users who feel the need to go to these groups to get the article, mainly because we don't offer enough support or advice. I believe I was unclear, I apologise. Mdann52 (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

(EC)Sorry that I mistook your meaning and jumped down your throat. "What can we do" about business and people who don't know our rules is a serious question and deserves a serious answer. Off the top of my head, we could do the following:

• If you see one of those ads, articles or posts on the internet that purports to explain how you can gt your own page on Wikipedia, challenge it. Explain our rules as simply and directly as possible.
• Participate at WP:COIN. Every little bit helps, and you will become more aware of what the particular problems are.
• Help out at AfD. With some real money at stake, (presumed) paid editors can be very difficult to deal with at AfD. But if it becomes clear that their ads and other paid advocacy will be deleted, there will be fewer ads created in the future.
• Clean up WP:AfC - Articles for Creation was used in the recent scam as a place to find customers and suckers. 1st we need a warning there that paid advocacy is not acceptable, and that scammers may attempt to contact businesses trying to get free ads.
• Individual editors could contact businesses and others that they believe are advertising on Wikipedia, but I'd say unless you know them or have had some kind of contact with them previously, don't do it. It is best left to the communications and legal departments at the WMF. If you do contact such folks, please make sure that you explicitly state that you are not a paid editor soliciting business. Otherwise it would look very much like some actions used in the current scam.
• Let the folks at ArbCom, ANI, and the WMF know that you you want them to take serious action on this.

more later. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• • There are at least 16 more ideas at User:Doc James/Paid editing. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm very wary of the language that Fuion uses "protection and extortion racket". If they mean "give us $30 a month or we will vandalise your article" then that is the correct language to use. Otherwise there are moral objections to what they are doing only if

1. it's snake oil - the articles will be protected sufficiently by the volunteer community
2. it's an unreasonably high price, and they can go nowhere else for the same product

There maybe ToS issues. But of all the CoI issues on Wikipedia, paid protection against vandalism is probably the least.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC).

At the very least, it is fraud. They cannot protect an article on WP. That would imply ownership of the article, as well as violating NPOV. The protection promised is not against vandalism, it is protection against enforcement of our rules.. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen their T's and C's - maybe by "protection" is meant the same thing as a bullet-proof vest being "protection". You can still be shot when wearing one, and injured, but that doesn't mean it's not protection.

In this case we have deleted 254 articles, regardless of out policies, which shows that nothing can guarantee "protection", even being well written, notable and NPOV. (Which of course, not all of them were.)

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC).

See also The Independent, PC World, Ars Technica, Wired, Vice, Le Temps, Komsomolskaya Pravda, Die Zeit. (stealing a list from Brianhe)

The Independent has the best article, tracking down individuals and businesses who were scammed. It makes it quite clear that the word extortion applies.

Rich Farmbrough - with all due respect, I hope that you will not be an apologist for extortionists. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not. I simply think that it is dangerous to make the news, and at the same time cite it as supporting one's interpretation of events. "In some cases, the requests for money amounted to blackmail, Wikipedia told The Independent." So the Independent is ignorant becasue "Wikipedia" did not tell them anything - either an editor told them, or the WMF told them. (I would like to know which and who.) If "our" view is that their actions are criminal, we should refer the matter to the police. If we believe they have commuted a tort we should decide if we (the WMF or some other group or entity) wish to sue. To say that they have been blackmailing, extorting or shaking down the subjects really requires detailed knowledge of the wording of their emails and other documents that I at least simply don't have.

On the other hand it is clear that they have violated the Terms of Service, and I would in principle be happy to see reasonable legal action taken against them on this basis.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC).

I'm sorry Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) but I see your two posts above as being wikilawyering for extortionists. It is absolutely shameful. I don't want to get into any further discussion about this so I won't reply on this subject. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

On review, this "best article" in The Independent says, "...Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia which is edited entirely by volunteers...", seems to miss the very point of its own story, that Wikipedia is not exclusively edited by volunteer. And further, "...Wikimedia – the voluntary body which runs Wikipedia...". So, Smallbones, according to your favorite source, we are to conclude that all of the good 250+ folks who work for Wikimedia are unpaid? Because that's what a "voluntary body" suggests to me. If The Independent's hack reporter like Glanfield cannot even get correct these basic understandings of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation, why do we trust that she got anything else nearly correct about OrangeMoody? I'm happy that you won't be replying on this subject, because you're rather out of your depth. - 2601:42:C100:9D83:28EE:F9A:B8EC:5271 (talk) 02:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Out of habit, I've got some secondary coverage of this:

• Gizmodo
• Ars Technica --Rubbish computer 21:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The latter of the two does nothing but regurgitate content from the WMF blog. --Rubbish computer 21:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

""give us $30 a month or we will vandalise your article" " Sounds like something SPECTRE would do, only the price would naturally be $1 million not $30 ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• The dichotomy posited in the heading here is false. It is not a question of "paid editing scandals" vs. "serious action." Certain forms of prophylactic regulations do nothing more than drive the (inevitable) paid editing further underground, creating new scandals. Fanaticism on this issue is actually counterproductive, realism is called for. Carrite (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:TPO & WP:RBI, close comments by IP sockpuppet of banned User:Vote (X) for Change
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
An editor warned months ago that Articles for Creation was not fit for purpose and should be deprecated. S/he proposed that the ability to create articles be restored to unregistered editors, bearing in mind that it was removed without the community's consent or even knowledge. To prevent abuse, s/he proposed that these articles remain within pending changes until the first edit by an autoconfirmed editor. The proposal gained consensus but was hatted by an administrator at the last moment and nothing was done. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 120#Proposal to change the focus of pending changes. I think that now is the time to pass this long overdue proposal to the developers for implementation. 92.25.66.96 (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Two words: Siegenthaler incident. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

That happened ten years ago and was a fiasco. But in Wikipedia terms, it is ancient history, and no one thinks it was the work of a paid editor. More like a garden variety troll. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

AfC is an incredible tool for keeping out a large percentage of the crap (especially promotional articles) from getting on to Wikipedia, if anything it will be strengthened not abolished. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Please note the closing statement for Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 120#Proposal to change the focus of pending changes:

This entire thread was initiated and driven on by ban-evading sock IPs. No concrete proposals were presented and discussed by legitimate editors. @Future Perfect at Sunrise: ☼ 10:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The articles created by these socks are almost entirely companies and people too minor for Wikipedia articles. Virtually all have been speedily deleted. A business built on evading Wikipedia notability rules cannot be "driven underground," because by virtue of their business model they must be underground. If brought above ground they fail. Thus the only approach is the one taken by the Foundation. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Every one was deleted, on the basis that it cuts off the funding from the paid editors. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC).

Two were kept, and several are pending, according to the article list. They were speedily deleted on the merits, on the basis of existing notability criteria so far as I know. Are you saying that articles on worthy subjects were unjustly deleted? If so, if you are an administrator you should undelete and their merits can be discussed. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

If you read carefully you will see that they were all deleted. Two have since been recreated as notable subjects. A blanket claim was made that that the average quality was poor (including NN subjects and copyvios), but the motivation and justification was to break the business model of the paid editors (or "shakedown" as it was described). I do not necessarily object to this, however I do think that consensus could have been gathered, rather than a cabalistic approach being taken. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC).
Figureofnine All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC).

In that case the articles should be restored and only deleted on the merits. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

An aside: some of the discussions above use the word "extortion." That is an overstatement. These were aggressive business practices, but not extortionate. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I and several others agree with you, (see above, see also signpost commentary) that (unless there is sooper-sekrit evidence) "extortion", "shakedown" and "blackmail" are currently inappropriate terms to use. However there is a widespread social phenomenon whereby we do not apply the same standards of probity to comments about people we disapprove of. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC).

Indeed. By the way, Rich I notice that you removed one of my comments, which I have reinstated. I assume it was unintentional. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Paid editing is not a major threat to Wikipedia. A bigger threat is the numerous, upaid cabals of agenda-driven editors who chase so many of the casual editors away through hostility and bullying. For a number or reasons, Wikipedians get all up in arms about the paid editing boogyman while ignoring all the political cabals operating openly in their midst. Cla68 (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• We can manage disclosed ethical paid editing. Undisclosed, unethical paid editing is a big problem, as is rampant sockpuppetry, impersonation of administrators, retaliatory editing against articles about businesses that don't "pay up", and telling companies like ordinary wedding photographers that they are eligible for a Wikipedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

In response to Cla68: What made this episode different from "cabals" of like-minded editors was that a business was established for the purpose of violating Wikipedia rules. It could not exist if Wikipedia notability rules were followed. Its business model was to insert articles in the project despite their triviality, and then utilize that to pressure businesses. "Extortion," as it is erroneously called by some. All the while, sockpuppets were created in advancement of the central scheme. One can argue that a large number of trivial articles is less dangerous that concerted skewing of high-visibility articles. That's a valid argument, but it doesn't lessen the need to constrain commercial exploitation of Wikipedia by third parties. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm wondering why you think calling the Orangemoody group's actions "extortion" is erroneous? Our article on extortion starts

Extortion (also called shakedown, outwrestling, and exaction) is a criminal offense of obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. It is sometimes euphemistically referred to as a "protection racket" since the racketeers often phrase their demands as payment for "protection" from (real or hypothetical) threats from unspecified other parties.

Isn't this exactly what they did? Certainly the report that revealed it used the word "shakedown." You might try to say that "coercion" involves violence, but that isn't correct, threats are also a form of coercion. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

"Venezuela government controls almost all the newspapers and television stations"

Hello Jimmy. I'm watching your "State of the wiki" talk for Wikimania 2015. There you said that "Venezuela government controls almost all the newspapers and television stations". Where did you get that idea?

That is a typical hoax repeated in many places. Here I gathered some info into two tables, using data from Wikipedia articles.

National newspapers in Venezuela Newspaper Owner Diario 2001 Bloque De Armas Correo del Orinoco State-owned Diario VEA State-owned El Nacional Miguel Henrique Otero El Nuevo País Rafael Poleo El Universal Epalisticia S.L. Tal Cual La Mosca Analfabeta C.A. Últimas Noticias Cadena Capriles

National television networks in Venezuela Television network Owner Venevisión Gustavo Cisneros Venezolana de Televisión State-owned TVes State-owned Televen Corporación TELEVEN, S.A ViVe State-owned Globovisión Juan Domingo Cordero Vale TV Arzobispado de Caracas Meridiano Televisión Bloque De Armas TeleSUR Public company

I hope that this data helps to clarify this topic. Regards. emijrp (talk) 14:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

1. "The national airwaves are now almost entirely dominated by the government and its obligatory announcements, called cadenas." - Reporters without Borders
2. "In a 2015 report by the Institute for Press and Society (IPYS), over 25 media organizations had changed in ownerships between 2010 and 2015 with the new owners having "a direct relationship" to local governments and the national government that were linked to Chavismo.[21]" - see Media_of_Venezuela which links to news about report here.
3. "Under new ownership, the network purged its newsroom and stopped airing live speeches by opposition leader" - Washington Post

Control of the media need not take the form of direct government intervention - threats leading to self-censorship and purchase by government proxies is sufficient. I stand my my assessment, which is in agreement with every serious human rights organization I have seen write about the issue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Emijrp: ¡Por vida! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Venezuela's situation is definitely a bad one - a cautionary tale that shows that even when freedom of the press is badly abused, abolishing it is a worse cure than the disease. Without suspending RCTV's license and persuading some of the other channels above to take a more 'neutral' position, Chavez still might not have faced another coup attempt; but by pursuing censorship online and off, he overthrew himself - the society he might have wanted was overthrown by one of excessive security and a failure to contemplate or compromise that has left them vulnerable in the oil downturn. For those abroad who wanted to turn back the Pink Tide, a bad leftism is far more useful than the complete overthrow of Chavez' government - indeed, one scarcely hears of the accomplishments of Uruguay, which has surged far ahead of the U.S. on that first press index, or of Bolivia or any other country that has shown that leftist politics can work, and work with democracy and human rights. That said, is the vague connection of the owner of Globovision with government interests really as close as that of Roger Ailes, who is CEO of Fox News? What about MSNBC, given the chumminess between Microsoft and the NSA? Even when you consider Ted Turner, definitely an independent media voice ... what does someone whose land has a higher GDP than Belize have to do with the legendary General Will? He may be independent of government, but what owner of large media is independent of the prerogatives and interests of wealth? I think it may be better to take a more remote, bottom-up view: what happens to you if you use a watt or two to broadcast your video on TV in your block, without getting it cleared by Somebody Better Than You? Then ask what country's media is free. Wnt (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

In all countries we should care a lot about journalistic freedom, and about what non-journalistic influences may be impacting what we see and hear and read. Having said that, I think it's unwise to make a comparison that would suggest that things in Venezuela are probably routine - they most certainly are not.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

That's not really my intent - I don't want to minimize censorship in Venezuela. The resignations at Globovision over their change in editorial policy are certainly a clue that something is particularly wrong there. Still, biased pro-government reports can occur anywhere when emboldened by a lack of competing voices to debunk false claims. Censorship is like Ebola - some people may just have a fever, while others are vomiting blood, and that matters for their prognosis ... but it is always the same virus, waiting for its next victim. I think that (because of the EM frequency licensing structure that Venezuela and the US share) the Internet offers the best alternative to biased, censored, or just "owned" news. For example, Wikipedia, a site where people can write and contribute directly, usually does far better at putting complex political issues in context than 99% of media reports. So it concerns me most when censorship is targeted at ordinary people on the Internet. Wnt (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

If you assess the situation of Venezuela media using Reporters Without Borders (see #Criticisms of RWB) and The Washington Post... Well, then obviously you will have that impression. In the same fashion that you check who controls the Venezuelan newspapers/televisions, you should check who controls that NGOs and newspapers, and their interests.

I wonder if the world was worried about freedom of expression in Venezuela before Chavez/Maduro, when all the media was private in the hands of businessmen and there were no public ones. Obviously not, because the super-neutral mass media and NGOs didn't report about it.

For a real problem for freedom of expression, see Concentration of media ownership. Here is a table with the most linked mass media as references in Wikipedia:

Mass media in references [1]

Mass media	Links	Country	Owner(s)
BBC	386,665	United Kingdom	Statutory corporation
The New York Times	211,769	United States	The New York Times Company
The Guardian	107,524	United Kingdom	Guardian Media Group, Scott Trust Limited
The Daily Telegraph	55,543	United Kingdom	Telegraph Media Group, Press Holdings, Barclay Brothers
Washington Post	44,674	United States	Nash Holdings LLC, Jeff Bezos
The Independent	38,983	United Kingdom	Independent Print Ltd, Evgeny & Alexander Lebedev
Los Angeles Times	30,894	United States	Tribune Publishing
Time	30,791	United States	Time Inc.
ABC	29,968	Australia	Statutory corporation
Reuters	28,290	United Kingdom	Thomson Reuters, The Woodbridge Company, Thomson family
USA Today	27,024	United States	Gannett Company
Daily Mail	26,251	United Kingdom	Daily Mail and General Trust

Almost all them owned by rich people, big companies, holdings, banks, etc. I don't see any owned by the poor, do you? Where is their freedom of expression? --emijrp (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The funny thing is, as an exercise in debating, I could take that exact data and make effectively the inverse argument: that the English Wikipedia has a left-wing bias. The American right-wing (I'm American, so this is my frame of reference) pretty much considers all of those except maybe the Telegraph and the Mail to be leftie socialist rags, especially the top three in that table. And indeed, it's not hard to find right-wingers online complaining about how Wikipedia is a liberal propaganda machine. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Emjirp: That's a good point about the rich being overly represented compared to the poor. However, the media's consisting of mostly 1%-controlled corporate outlets such as the above influences society as a whole, with Wikipedia simply using the most reliable sources available. --Rubbish computer 22:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Getting better?

Is Wikipedia getting better? --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: That depends on how you classify "better". It is growing. Rubbish computer 19:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

There was a study before showing it gradually getting more neutral in terms of wording, but still being biased to the left. Unfortunately I can't remember where. Rubbish computer 19:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree at it would depend on what you mean by better since there are several ways to interpret better (including more non Western content, Quicker response to vandalism and POV Pushers, improving the software to make editing easier, etc).--65.94.253.185 (talk) 03:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

"It is growing." Well, then it obviously must be better, mustn't it?. Because everyone knows that bigger is better. Q.E.D.

However, if instead of looking at the number of articles it contains and creates (many of which are of mediocre quality) you instead look at the number of active contributing editors, then Wikipedia has actually been shrinking since 2007, and continues to do so. Of course, no one involved in Wikipedia wants to hear that - especially old guard "well-entrenched" editors who wish to perpetuate, as part of their own Peter Pan denial of changing reality, the period just prior to circa 2007 when Wikipedia was in its heyday and had become a web institution. However, since its 2007 zenith at over 50,000 active editors, Wikipedia editorial participation has been steadily declining due to it becoming a bureaucratic behemoth with no structure or leadership and a high level of policy creep. By its very nature Wikipedia eschews any sort of central planning and conventional expertise. Thus it considers contributions by subject matter experts in real life to be a conflict of interest since they get paid for their expert knowledge, and that's not "the Wikiway" - which is amateur volunteerism. Consequently, Wikipedia articles are created mostly by unemployed management consultants, dilettante telephone sanitizers, and a Scouse hairdresser called Rita who mostly contributes on her two half days off work.

Over the intervening years since its 2007 peak Wikipedia's culture, which was always feisty and argumentative (but ultimately in a good, constructive way), has now become top heavily bureaucratic and highly confrontational (in an obstructionist and persnickety unproductive way). The rules and guidelines for contributing to the project (which used to be just the "five pillars" of policy guidance) have now reached labyrinthine levels that long ago crossed "Teal Deer" thresholds, becoming internally inconsistent and self-contradictory in the process. This, in turn, only creates more opportunities for daily acrimony and disputes to occur, thereby requiring an ever-increasing volunteer work force of officious and sometimes abusive admin panjandrums to police it. Jimmy Wales has been dismissing suggestions that the project will get worse for years now (despite hard evidence to the contrary), but is on record as stating that he believes the project cannot significantly improve without an influx of new editors who have different interests and emphases (not to mention gender!). Yet Wikipedia's complete intransigence - or perhaps its inept incompetence (e.g., the "Visual Editor" debacle); it's actually a lot of both - at abating the ever-increasing levels of acrimonious confrontation and bureaucracy is not only failing to attract his desired new blood, but is preventing what new editors that do venture to dip their foot into the Wikipedian waters from also staying very long, in addition to driving away long established "old guard" editors as well.

On the flip side of the coin, with Wikipedia receiving more than ten billion page views every month that keep it in the top ten of the most used websites in the world, and with the project still creating lots of new articles and pages, there are many Pollyannaish Wikipedians that feel everything is simply fine and dandy and generally tickety-boo. Wikipedia has continually grown from day one and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. For instance, it hasn't even started to scratch the surface yet when it comes to documenting all the Finnish and Czech ice hockey players, so still plenty of work to do right there. Ask any Wikipedia editor and he'll tell you it's "a work in progress" with still no end in sight where that Borgesian day is eventually arrived at when the encyclopedia will have finally documented and defined everything that has ever existed in the world. No doubt the editors of Encarta felt as equally confident and bullish. If Wikipedia is bigger and brighter today then it can only be even bigger and brighter still tomorrow. Indeed it can, but one does suspect that such ostrich Wikipedians may have never read this particular article. — not really here discuss 05:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that'a really, really long comment there. I doubt that many people will read all of it. I prefer to be concise. The best available metrics show that the number of active editors is actually increasing modestly, rather than decreasing. Read a recent Signpost article about the data. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

There ya go, old fella. I've now broken my post up into four separate messages so that even people with IQs less than ambient room temperature, or recovering from cataract surgery, like yourself will now be able to follow it. I also made sure I did it in as many edits as I could in order to maximize my edit count. That way I will soon be a Senior Editor, which will hopefully allow me to wander around Wikipedia with a gold star stuck on my forehead like an over-achieving preschooler too. Good call. — not really here discuss 08:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the gracious remarks. They reflect well on you, I'm sure. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

My favorite way of checking this is to "click random article" on 10 articles, and go back and look at them a year ago, 5 years ago, 10 years ago. Every time I have tried, it's unambiguous: Wikipedia is getting better by this test.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

So just checking that ten random articles all get longer in any chosen five year span conclusively proves Wikipedia is getting better? Wow, that's really scientific! Do you perhaps have any sources you could cite that verify that such a methodology is remotely meaningful of anything? How do your random checks prove the quality of the writing is improving; or that it's becoming more NPOV; or more factually correct; or better sourced? Does you random check methodology conclusively show that the percentage of women editing Wikipedia is significantly increasing over every five year span? Or that more articles are being written about Africa than, say, Finnish ice hockey players? BTW, by "citable sources" I mean reliable secondary sources from independent publishers ... not a Signpost article produced by Wikipedia as an Orwellian morale-raiser for the troops; and by "percentage of women" I mean the percentage of real independent thinking women, not women who get paid by, or receive college course credits from, feminists to intrude ultra-feminist POV material into Wikipedia anyway they can (because they don't count). — not really here discuss 09:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps your could read what Jimbo actually wrote? The word "longer" or any synonym doesn't appear in his post. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Gee, Gamergate much? That's a lot of questions, and virtually every single one of them contains an invalid premise or is asking me as if I made claims that I did not make. Let me answer your questions, all of them, and then you can go away and never ever post on my talk page again unless you take that chip off your shoulder.

1. "So just checking that ten random articles all get longer in any chosen five year span conclusively proves Wikipedia is getting better?" - Checking the length is not what I suggested. I suggested checking the quality. 'any chosen five year period' - not 'any' - the relevant 5 year period, the one ending now. Does checking 10 articles "conclusively prove" anything? Of course not. I said that it's my favorite way - it is something that I do from time to time, and I encourage others to do it.
2. "Do you perhaps have any sources..." No, I don't. I made the method up out of thin air. But it's a good idea, and you should try it sometime. I would actually love it if we had a tool to allow lots of people to do it and track the results across thousands of articles over many years.
3. "How do your random checks prove.. (various things)" - try it and you'll see what I mean. All those things are true.
4. " Or that more articles are being written about Africa than, say, Finnish ice hockey players?" - This particular method is focussed on the quality of individual articles and will completely miss problems with balance across various fields. A different test would be required to deal with that. Again, I told about a favorite way to check on the quality - it is not the only way nor even a comprehensive way. I never claimed it was, so your hostility is unwarranted.
5. As to the rest of your comments - they contain little content but they do reveal your agenda, so thanks for including that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course you didn't say 'longer', but since you gave no methodology for assessing 'quality', he was teasing you with 'length'. Given that the random method generally gets you 10 articles that you would never find in a standard reference work, a better method is to start with random articles taken from a standard reference work, and see if Wikipedia through time is approaching the quality of the standard work, using an appropriate understanding of 'quality'.

Another method, if you are a specialist in some subject, is to watch the progress about articles in that subject. As you know, I know a little about this guy, and this recent edit was just plain weird. On that measure, it's not getting better at all. And that's despite my occasional attempts at improvement. Peter Damian (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Apparently it's not getting better. I have had many differences with Fram, but he is on the mark here. Peter Damian (talk) 09:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Me? I'm not really here: I know bigger isn't better, I was simply stating a fact. Rubbish computer 11:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Me? I'm not really here: Do you have a source for the number of active contributors continuing to decrease? --Rubbish computer 12:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I have a number of sources (a dozen or so off the top of my head, possibly more) that support most of the points I made in my original post. If I was posting that text into an article they would, of course, have been cited at the appropriate places. But this is a Talk page and I made my comment extempore, not with those sources directly to hand, some of which I have not read in a long while, so I will have to go Google them in order to locate them. There is a possibility that some no longer exist (as some might go back as far as 2009). I will post each source as and when I find it and append it as a bullet underneath this reply. This might take awhile. However, before even starting that process, I first wish to address Jimbo's response(s). — not really here discuss 20:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, here is the first reference source for some of what I initially posted (but not re Wikipedia contributors getting smaller, those will follow in due course). It can be summed up by the quote: "So long as an illiterate drug addict can override the work of a Harvard professor, Wikipedia will never be an authoritative reference." This is the source / basis for my comments at the end of my first paragraph (although obviously I cannot source my own humor) and it is clearly pertinent to the sort of posting interchange that just occurred with user JBL (which is why I found it first). Peter Damian also appears to be having a problem with this obvious flaw regarding how Wikipedia works.

• http://www.dba-oracle.com/t_credibility_wikipedia.htm

— not really here discuss 03:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Using Jimbo's method, I pushed the random article button in the side menu 10 times. I only tried the 5 year part of Jimbo's time ranges of 1, 5, and 10 years, which would have been more thorough. Below are the links to the diffs from 5 years ago to now. In cases where the page was created less than 5 years ago, I gave the current version, which is essentially the diff from it's nonexistence 5 years ago to now.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kim_Hee-sun&type=revision&diff=678916354&oldid=383599363
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dunleavy&type=revision&diff=652077569&oldid=369884357
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iniquity_%28band%29&type=revision&diff=662721521&oldid=378161666
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chamaemelum_nobile&type=revision&diff=672437156&oldid=380965667
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walter_G._Alexander&type=revision&diff=679298867&oldid=372115853
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uilenburg_%28Amsterdam%29&type=revision&diff=545941955&oldid=379618447
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tadahito&oldid=536153308
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Niemi&type=revision&diff=540632279&oldid=372534500
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simon_Petrie&oldid=655260314
10. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eoxin_E4&oldid=670415197

--Bob K31416 (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Great. I don't have time right now to study all those... how did we do in your random set?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's some comments for each page. (I use "page" because some are disambiguation pages.)

1. Improved. Changed from small article with no figure and almost no cites to moderate sized article with 36 cites and figure.

2. Improved. A disambiguation page that grew with more wikilinks to articles and a discussion of item that was disambiguated and with a figure added for the discussion.

3. Unreferenced and about the same.

4. Uncertain but probably improved. It would take study. Reflist increased from 2 to 6, which is a good sign.

5. About the same with a few lines added.

6. A stub about the same.

7. Stub created about 3 years ago.

8. A disambiguation page that is about the same.

9. A small article created a little less than 5 years ago.

10. A stub created 8 months ago.

Overall, it looks like an improvement to me. (Just an aside, but most of the 10 pages were about people.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I would be careful about inferring from this result anything about the rest of the encyclopedia, considering the limited subject matter of these pages and other factors. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I've just read your post so I'm going to take a break from what I'm trying to compose in reply to Jimbo in order to address some obvious issues with what what you just posted so that maybe others can build on it while I get back to the task at hand. You have just spent upto 7 hours (based on the difference in timestamps between posting your initial ten diffs and then posting back with your cursory analysis of them) discovering for yourself first hand the wisdom that Peter posted at 17:19, just under three hours after you first posted your diffs, and which was also the basis of my, "Wow, that's really scientific!" comment made at 9:22, over five hours before you even embarked on this experiment. You just stated in your last two posts:

• "Just an aside, but most of the 10 pages were about people."
• "I would be careful about inferring from this result anything about the rest of the encyclopedia, considering the limited subject matter of these pages and other factors."

What you have just said, in effect, is: "Yeah it appears in a touchy-feely sort of way that some have improved, while a few others have remained about the same, so 'overall, it looks like an improvement' (your exact words)" ... and then having thought about your analysis some more, you felt obligated to post further to add words to the effect: "But this doesn't really mean anything, given how skewed the sample was."

Not only was the random sample skewed, it was a totally indeterminate and meaningless sample rate for an encyclopedia that now boasts however many million? (hundreds of thousands?; I'm afraid I don't have the latest numbers to hand, but hopefully you get my point, and should someone reading this have the actual number, please feel free to replace this caveat text with that value) articles. If you know anything about statistics and probability sampling rates then you would have realized, without embarking on your recent exercise to indulge Jimbo, that in order to make any useful inferences about a sampled population, choosing an insignificant sampling rate is basically counter-productive. It is simply going to fool you into believing that your sampled results mean much more than they really do. That is, it's not going to be predictive of anything meaningful, no matter to what kind of population (in this particular case, all currently extant Wikipedia articles) that sampling is applied, because the likely error rate is going to be way too large.

Even if we allow Jimbo the grace of a much larger than normal margin of error in his choice of sample size (since it is meant to be a quick sanity check, frequently applied, rather than a one-shot prediction of who is going to win the upcoming election), sampling only ten random articles would only have had some merit if the encyclopedia was orders of magnitude smaller than it currently is. All the necessary formulae are in that linked article should you wish to perform the math yourself. In layman's terms, the exercise you just undertook is the equivalent of trying to predict the outcome of a general election in the United States by asking only half a dozen voters how they voted as they left the polling booth. Thus it was an exercise in futility before you even began it. Which is the conclusion you came to yourself the more you thought about it afterwards.

It was also what I meant with my "that's really scientific" remark, but I can hardly expect you or anyone else to infer all of the above from that single remark. However, that observation came out in that curt manner due to some other numpty having previous played the WP:TL;DR card who I was also trying to satisfy with my post. IMO the "Teal Deer" contribution to WP guidance is the biggest cause of confrontation on Wikipedia (and thus editors leaving) because anyone trying to have intelligent open discourse in order to achieve consensus can be simply closed down by someone else, who cannot provide a convincing counter-argument for anything themselves, by their repeatedly using it to try and silence any arguments they disagree with by simply declaring the more constructive contribution to be longer than a Tweet. No wonder most differences of opinion on Wikipedia never reach consensus as they are meant to, but end up in AN/I instead. — not really here discuss 02:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I also forgot to add in my comment above, for such a sampling exercise to be meaningful, in addition to the sample being large enough you usually also require a control group reference population in order to make any sense of what your sampled data is telling you. I don't wish to turn this discussion into a Math 101 course so you will have to work that one out for yourself. In this particular case, Wikipedia is your friend (but that is not always the case). However, exactly that point had already been made by Peter, as I stated above, before you ever reached the conclusion you did yourself. Please go read Peter's post again. A standard reference work, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, that Peter refers to would be the control group or reference population in this instance. Peter explains in his post that unless you choose some sort of reference point for apples-to-apples comparison then your random sample is going to be fairly useless - such as disambiguation pages incorrectly treated as articles or bios of people or heavy metal bands of dubious notability. If Jimbo had instead randomly selected ten articles from the EB (all of which are written and peer-reviewed by subject-matter experts) and asked, "OK, how does Wikipedia treat these same ten topics?" and then compared the Wikipedia articles with the corresponding EB ones based on some well-defined and mutually agreed upon definition of what constitutes "quality" then we might actually have the makings of a useful metric. All Jimbo has done is given you a pseudo-metric that looks and feels like it is more scientific / mathematical than it really is. It's the Wikipedia equivalent of a proof that all triangles are isosceles. — not really here discuss 02:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

In contrast with my earlier comment below, I would like to note that this exhibits real style. I mean, we've got nearly 50Kb of edits here in the past week (plus tens of Kb on other talk pages) and in the middle one finds sighing laments about WP:TL;DR. The care and craftsmanship applied is almost touching. --JBL (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Also of course the choice of a username echoing WP:NOTHERE is all class. --JBL (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for violating WP:AGF by making your puerile assumptions about the origins of my user name simply to post a personal attack. My user name has absolutely nothing to do with WP:NOTHERE (bit unfortunate that) but is instead a nodding reference to Paul Lake, plus also the fact that I left Wikipedia due to encounters with people like you but would infrequently post anonymously now and then to correct things. Interestingly, what I discovered (purely by accident) while posting anonymously is that others paid much more attention to just the edits being made (simply because they had nothing else to go on in order to make entirely invalid and almost libelous assumptions about the person that made them like you just did) such that they never led to any confrontation and were rarely challenged. I only re-registered with a user id. because I had to change my static IP address of some fourteen years or so standing, by which time I had a lengthy Talk page associated with it, and it just seemed easier to redirect to a user name than another IP address. I was reluctant to do that (hence my new user name) for the reasons you just validated. — not really here discuss 03:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Making the Wales method work

The wall of text by the editor who is not really here makes exactly one valid point. A sample size of 10 is not big enough to draw serious conclusions. Big deal, everybody knows that already. So the question arises "How could your make this method work to draw serious conclusions?"

• 1. you need to understand that this is just one way to evaluate the improvement of the encyclopedia. It could answer the question "Is the average article getting better?", but ignores completely how many articles there are.
• 2. It would be nice to have some sort of measurement of article quality. Many measures are presumably related to article quality, e.g. size, number of editors editing in the last month or year, number of footnotes, number of tags on the page, and perhaps even the number of see-also links, or illustrations. But these don't really get to the heart of the matter. I wouldn't completely trust the stub, start, C, B, A, FA ratings. They generally seem out of date and inconsistently applied, and probably change in meaning over time. A subjective assessment of quality might be applied (say 1-10) but care would have to be taken to make sure different reviewers rate consistently.
• 3. A sample size of 400 articles should be able to do the job, if you want to test for a 5% change in one of the variables. (Notice this doesn't depend on the number of articles in the encyclopedia, whether it's 10,000 or 10,000,000 articles)
• 4. Since you want to measure the quality of articles, ditch the disambig pages, but leave in every other type of article, e.g. lists
• 5. I can't see any reason that the random article function, which is actually pseudorandom, shouldn't be good enough. It wouldn't be good enough if for some reason it selected e.g. newer articles, or larger article more frequently. Anybody have any info on the random article function?
• 6. One fly in the ointment is that deleted articles would not be sampled, so the "average article" from 1 or 5 years ago would be biased. Presumably, if our editors believed the encyclopedia was better off without the article, then the bias would work against finding improvement. The missing deleted articles were bad, and now that they're gone the encyclopedia is improved. I doubt the %'age of deleted article is high enough to effect any results however, and you never can tell for sure whether our editors delete good articles.

So it is definitely possible to make this method work, with just a couple quibbles as is usual. I'd suggest doing it over time, say 25 article each week. Then you'd have a large enough sample size to draw conclusions every 3 months, and then 4 samples per year to see how things change over time. Anybody interested? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules are blatantly being ignored

A now inactive administrator setup a rule where only accounts with 500 edits could edit the talk page of an article. I've been trying to get a grasp on the situation, but out of nowhere the people who've been editing this article all seem to be showing up to defend this rule. They started this after I pointed out this rule they've been abusing to keep out new editors isn't allowed by the ArbCom ruling or discretionary sanctions they've used to justify it.

The only page protections allowed by the rules are full and semi-protection. The rules also explicitly say that new editors should be welcomed. Of course, they are saying all rules should be ignored in order to justify violating the rules.

If that is the case then I hope you can ignore all rules and rescind this unique and unjustified sanction. I have little faith that putting this on any sort of appeal board will result in a fair and open ruling on the subject because of the incredible briskness at which multiple involved editors magically appeared from the void telling me that I shouldn't even bother and that they can guarantee that the appeal won't be successful.

This guarantee is extremely odd in its certainty and certainly chilling to anyone else wanting to edit. Saigo no Yume (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

A place for everyone trying to derail the conversation on the actual rules being violated

:Quick question: Where were you recruited? 8chan? /v/? —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 22:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC) Is this a joke? Or a continuation of the intimidation campaign? Saigo no Yume (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC) It's a serious question. The only people who have complained about the restrictions - which do have ArbCom's blessing owing to the extreme disruption by (primarily) pro-GG sockpuppets - are those who're jumping into the topic area as new accounts. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 22:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC) We can see that the new people from the various places to push their GG POV continue to be familiar with wiki-lawyering. Exactly the behavior that contributed to so many problems. Ravensfire (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC) <popcorn.gif>--Jorm (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I had a slow moment a minute ago, I wasn't sure which article this was about. --Rubbish computer 22:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

This is about the Gamergate talk page. A single now-inactive admin made a 500 post minimum for new editors to use the talk page. This wasn't in concordance with the rules used to justify his actions. Saigo no Yume (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it absolutely was in accordance with the rules. I know you feel the need to Right a Great Wrong, but this was exactly legal and normal.--Jorm (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Saigo no Yume: I don't know much about this, so I've got nothing further to say. --Rubbish computer 22:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Given that ignoring rules when necessary to ensure the functioning of the encyclopaedia is one of our rules, I can't see the problem... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

This sanction was only put in place to protect someone who is now banned from the topic area for harassing people. The proper course of action, at that time, was to sanction TheRedPenofDoom, instead of letting him continue acting that way. Instead the admin decided to stop all new editors from editing the talk page - because that's obviously a smart idea. Of course, all the people currently editing the Gamergate article want to continue to keep out opposing views - this thread demonstrates that very well - even if it means violating wikipedia's rules and chasing away anyone considering editing at wikipedia. Saigo no Yume (talk) 22:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, boy, if it weren't obvious before you were a recruited sock/meatpuppet, it sure as hell is now. We're quite aware of 8chan's vendetta against TRPoD. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Nope. It was put in place because of the extreme disruption socks and new account unfamiliar with the policies for sourcing and WP:NPOV work. But please, continue to believe your fantasy version. Ravensfire (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No wonder you think everyone is a meat or sockpuppet. You are filled with confirmation bias. In fact, I only learned about TheRedPenofDoom from a link that another administrator showed me just today. But oh no, someone directly showing me that link today, which is shown in my history, couldn't possibly be the reason where I learned about him. Saigo no Yume (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I think you are a sock-/meatpuppet based on the fact that you're a new account who's railing against the GG talk page restrictions, who only appears to have edits related to same, who's wonking to try and get the restrictions which ArbCom has no objections to given the severity of the abuse removed, and who name-checks TRPoD, whom pro-GG has been trying to get sanctioned since before the GG ArbCom case. Where there's smoke, there's fire. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I tried to edit the talk page. It didn't work. I asked for help. I gathered information during this phase where I asked for help. This is all documented by my earlier edits. You've decided I'm a sockpuppet based on 1) Wanting a restriction removed that affected me and 2) Using the name of someone who was linked to me by an admin earlier today. Apparently you guys accuse everyone of being a meatpuppet or sockpuppet. I've never edited the Gamergate articles before, nobody asked me to come here, I've never been to any of the websites you've mentioned except for Reddit. Do you ban everyone who uses Reddit or something? Give me a break. This is all confirmation bias on your part - or merely one of many ploys to keep people away from your articles. Saigo no Yume (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry, but that's complete bullshit and no one is going to believe you. Your very first edit was to WP:AE. Your first. You're being coached; you're a meatpuppet; I lay odds that you'll be site-banned by EOD.--Jorm (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Rules:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions

Page restrictions7.5

Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists). Editors ignoring page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator. The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place.

Best practice is to add editnotices to restricted pages where appropriate, using the standard template ().

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Remedies

"(vii) Discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning."

Nowhere does it allow an administrator to stop entire classes of editors from participating in talk page discussions. In fact, the discretionary sanctions rules specifically say NOT to chase away new editors. Saigo no Yume (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

See WP:IAR. The limits would not have been imposed if people didn't continually create or recruit sock- or meatpuppets to cheat the discretionary sanctions. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

In other words, the gamergate editors/admins defined anyone who had a different point of view on that article as a "meatpuppet," but since that didn't work a single admin decided that every new account is a meatpuppet. Very convenient. He used the ArbCom ruling to justify his actions, but Arbcom didn't allow his actions. If "IAR" lets you choose any sanction you want, even if it isn't allowed, then why bother having ArbCom rulings in the first place? Just let admins unilaterally decide to ban any class of person they don't want on their articles. Saigo no Yume (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

This restriction isn't serving to block different points of view. If you were to look at discussions on the Gamergate talk page you'd notice that there's a wide variety of people (bit short on women though), with a wide variety of views about what the article should contain. The one thing that unites them all, is that they've made over 500 edits to Wikipedia and therefore have at worst, a passable idea of how wikipedia policy works. You on the other hand have no clue what you're doing and seem to not even have read the FAQ.[2] Do you really think there is any point to what you are doing, or that you'd be able to do anything to the article if you were somehow granted access to comment? Brustopher (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Well apparently I'm the only one bright enough to notice that requiring 500 edits to use the talk page isn't allowed by the sanctions that were supposedly used to justify it. I wonder what else is being missed by new blood being bullied away from wikipedia? If the page needs to be semi-protected then that is allowed by the rules. What that inactive admin did is not allowed. It is very simple. Some people apparently desire a highly restricted set of users. Ban any old accounts that disagree with the "Gamergate is rape" narrative and then stop anyone who isn't OCD from participating in it? Bravo. Saigo no Yume (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I will say it again: The Arbitration Committee has not attempted to stop the restriction from being enforced. In fact, its success with this topic area may lead it to be used in another one. You, on the other hand, seem to be desperate to hide any effort of your wrongdoing. Were I still an admin, I'd've already blocked you, sent you to the Checkusers, and have been done with it just based off of what I know about the on- and off-wiki goings on and the fact that you're so blindingly obvious the only reason you haven't been blocked yet is for the entertainment value as you flail about. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

You continued attacks against me are unjustified nor do you listen to any explanation that conflicts with your worldview. Discussion with you is non-productive and will be ignored or collapsed per (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Refactoring_talk_pages Removal of off-topic, uncivil, unclear, or otherwise distracting material). Thank god you aren't an admin anymore, but I assume you have many admin friends still. Saigo no Yume (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but discussion of whether you're a sockpuppet or not is very germane to this conversation. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Start another topic in an appropriate area then. This is about the rules being violated by the Gamergate article gatekeepers. Saigo no Yume (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

And you, being obviously a sockpuppet, can't expect to evade scrutiny on a thread you yourself created. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Honestly I just came to this talk page on a lark and my primary focus on WP has been about Staten Island (my home town lately) but I have to say Jeremy that you have been excessively abrasive to Saigo. I understand that GG is a hot button issue but your disingenuous assertions do not help. EVERYONE on this encyclopedia has worth and their opinions have merit. If as you said Saigo is a GG sock he'd have been working in secret to get passed the 500/30 sanction so as to get to the GG page with no one the wiser. TMazzio (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

This is what I never understand when this complaint comes up (as it has several times). There are now close to 5 million articles on the English Wikipedia. There are restrictions on this one article because of disruptions from sock puppets. It's also to protect new editors who were wandering into editing this article like a bull in a china shop and finding themselves quickly getting a topic ban or indefinite block. To be it bluntly, Gamergate controversy is not a good place for a new editor to learn how to edit on Wikipedia as it is full of pitfalls.

I figure that an active editor can satisfy the 500/30 editing restriction in one to three months of active editing. Is this such an unbearably long period of time to wait, to learn Wikipedia editing policies, before starting in on a contentious article? If, on the other hand, you have no interest in improving the nearly 5 million other articles and only want to focus on editing this one article, then that is a sign that you are an editor this restriction was created to protect against. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

You protect new editors from topic bans - by preemptively enforcing the topic ban. Isn't that like shooting a man to stop his suicide? Who's the kind of editor this restriction was created to prevent, POV pushers perhaps because it doesn't appear to have done that - at all. 104.238.169.86 (talk) 04:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is obviously a project in turmoil, on its last legs. If this were a serious, vibrant project, I would expect much better quality trolling. Instead, we have this boring rehash (as well as a boatload full of people who need to learn the first rule of trolls). I give it six months until WMF decides to shut the whole thing down out of boredom. --JBL (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)