User talk:Jimbo Wales

More ArbCom Candidates needed

Self-nominations for positions on the ArbCom Committee (see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates) have been going on since Sunday and will continue until November 17. So far there are 10 declared candidates for the 9 open positions, so we'll have at least some choice, but more candidates are needed.

It's not unusual at this early stage, but IMHO a couple of the current candidates would have great difficulty getting elected (perhaps are even unelectable), so the need for more candidates is even higher than the 10 candidates for 9 positions numbers suggest. I'm very happy to report that 5 or 6 candidates have come out strongly in favor of taking action against bullying. (That's preliminary of course - we'll see how they answer all the questions posed). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• How many non-club members (aka non-Admins) so far? AnonNep (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Quick count:
    • 5 who have never been admins
    • 2 former admins
    • 3 current admins (including 1 former arb and 1 arb clerk)
  • so it's a bit "anti-establishment" so far. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Smallbones, we await your nomination. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

While I'll likely write a voters' guide, let's just say that I have the greatest sympathy for those folks who know that they don't have the time or patience to serve on ArbCom. Somebody has to step up to the plate with 2 outs in the bottom of the 9th inning in the 7th game of the World Series. But I'm destined to remain in the minor leagues. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'm personally baffled as to how ArbCom will have any effect on the bullying, harassment, and paranoia that seems to be so engrained in the Wikipedia community. I see the community driving away this site's main resource, writers, in droves. And what remains are deletionists, sockpuppet avengers, and vandal fighters. Not only are those three demands a primarily negative aspect of the site, it's the bare minimum to keep this site going. This is a slow, but trickling losing proposition. Big, positive changes are what's needed here... that the community will accept. Sigh. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 00:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'd like Smallbones to run, too. That would be fun. Carrite (talk) 05:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Why not? It'd be very interesting to see what sort of job ArbCom's greatest critics make of arbitrating. I'd even go so far as to suggest that should not all places be filled, Jimmy coopt some of the greatest critics onto the committee. Would that result in deadlock? Or would realpolitik kick in and editors be forced to cooperate?  Roger Davies ^talk 07:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I suppose it's something of an honor for the senior sitting arb to suggest that I am one of ArbCom's "greatest critics," but I don't see that at all. I have made 3 criticisms of ArbCom in the past, to the best of my recollection.

• That the 2014-2015 ArbComs have really messed up the cases involving bullying of women. They just lacked the moral courage IMHO to step forward and say "this is wrong, we have to take strong action here." That's the only thing I care about in this election.
• That ArbCom and admins in general have almost always failed to stop hidden advertising on Wikipedia per WP:NOT. I did my utmost to work through the Wikipedia system to change this, then helped to pass the paid editor disclosure rule via the Terms of Use change. When ArbCom chose to say that the ToU were *not* Wikipedia policy in the Wifione case this year, I brought this to your attention and was amazed when you chose to ignore it.
• Something comparatively minor, that I haven't been very loud about. Last year I was dragged before ArbCom for reverting a banned editor, something specifically allowed by WP:BANREVERT. While ArbCom did not sanction me for this, I was stunned that the case took a full month and nobody actually accused me of breaking any rule. It would be much easier for people to defend themselves if it was required that accusers actually state what rule they think was broken. That ought to be changed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• Smallbones Your case would be this stuff, I guess: FOF, Remedy. And I was actually using "greatest" not as a measure of excellence but of magnitude. As in, greatest disaster, greatest catastrophe etc.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Smallbones I'm troubled by your remark about lacking moral courage. Is there any evidence for this or it is speculation of your part? Could it not also be that the committee itself echoes the very differing views held by the community on bullying and incivility, and were unable to find consensus? Perhaps too it might be that the cases simply weren't framed as bullying in the first place? To take GamerGate as an example, it's all very well saying that this was about gender when, in fact, in 33,000 words of public GamerGate evidence, the word "gender" is mentioned once. And in the 8,900 words of private evidence, it is also mentioned once, in a quote.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

So if it were gridlocked by discordant voices, what would ArbCom do to break their own intractable disputes? Ban one another on the sly through proxies? Call for the establishment of a new MegaCom to resolve internal matters that ArbCom could not settle themselves? One does wonder. Carrite (talk) 13:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

We'd do what we're doing right now wrt AUSC. Nothing. For my money, what we do need more of, in terms of candidates, are people who are willing to accept compromises. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• My block log (which includes a 1-year siteban) disqualifies me from running. Besides, I'm against revealing my off-Wikipedia identity. GoodDay (talk) 06:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Disqualified is a strong term, I'm sure you are allowed to run. You have been block free for well over a year, people have made admin on similar gaps since their last block. As for identification, I think it is privately to the WMF it doesn't have to be public. ϢereSpielChequers 10:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Not even WMF is getting any private info from me. GoodDay (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• Smallbones What action should arbitrators take against bullies with blogs, bullies with extensive press contacts, and bullies with fan clubs of bullies? And how best should we protect arbitrators from themselves being bullied? On- and off-wiki?  Roger Davies ^talk 11:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Roger Davies:

First, I believe in freedom of speech, so no action against editors who speak to the press is appropriate. I was surprised that some editors suggested that re: the recent article in The Atlantic. Blogs are about the same, unless they are encouraging physical violence in which case you should probably contact the police and the WMF. Bullies with fan clubs of bullies on Wikipedia? - I'd suggest just banning the 1st bully and trying to ignore the rest. Again if any real threats of violence occur, contact the police and WMF. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Roger Davies: I don't mean to hijack this conversation, but can't let this pass without asking: to what extent would you say bullying has/has had on ArbCom, ultimately? I didn't realize it was happening at the ArbCom level, not to the degree that would inspire you to mention it here, anyway. This is pretty serious, in my opinion, and underscores Wuerzele's remarks at the GMO PD talk page about a possible "capture" of the Arbs. petrarchan47คุก 21:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Petrarchan47: The biggest impact of attempted bullying on arbitrators long term is burn out. It is one of the main reasons why some arbitrators resign early. The nature of the bullying varies consderably: from flash mobs with torches and pitchforks, to phone calls in the middle of the night. It is not exactly a secret either; it has been discussed, sometimes extensively, on wikipedia for years. In response to the stuff about "capturing", Wikipedia has vocal advocates for all sorts of POVs. Some mainstream, others less. Typically, in cases, ArbCom charts its own course, which invariably leads to allegations of favouritism or bias from both warring parties. It's the way it always has been, the way it is, and the way it will probably always be.  Roger Davies ^talk 21:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Roger. I'm watching the bullying/hounding of one Arb taking place on a couple of other pages as we speak. I'm no longer under the illusion that the Arbs are somehow protected from the same forces that drive lowly editors away, from the forces that indeed control article content in certain areas of intere$t. So it appears that the co-founder is right about trolls. petrarchan47คุก 22:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Although it certainly doesn't solve the problem of arbs being subject to offsite bullying in general, candidates who have previously experienced significant offsite bullying are probably more likely to be resilient to it than most others, and an arbcom that as a whole takes a strong stance against on-site bullying of all editors - including arbitrators - would probably mitigate the on-site component to bullying. I've seen a few situations in the last year where editors have directed vicious invective against members of the arbitration committee without having action taken against them for it. My impression in these situations has been arbs have been hesitant to take action against even the most vicious invective directed against members of the arbitration committee for fear of appearing to just want to silence their own critics - but some of this stuff has been of a level that no volunteer should reasonably expected to put up with. I wouldn't suggest punishing personal attacks against arbs worse than against others (and in fact probably do support lighter punishment,) but at some point they should certainly be acted on. Offsite bullying is harder to deal with, although I would note that multiple sites that have tended to facilitate such things in the past have been much more hesitant to do in the recent past due to changes in their ToU, or just some of their mods being fundamentally decent people. (I mean, there's harsher speculation about issues involving my health on Wikipedia than there is in any public section of WPO. I do think that arbcom candidates should be ready to deal with their actions being discussed in the press - even when I was an editor and not yet an admin many of my content choices (sometimes even in situations where I'd only made a single edit to a topic) where picked up on by MSM outlets without them notifying me ahead of time. If an arb disagrees with an outlet's characterization of their behavior, most outlets are quite receptive to printing counterpoints (at least brief ones,) especially when they come from someone in some position of authority, such as an individual arb. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe Smallbones feels that the answer to what ails Arbcom is that all incoming members should be female. At least that is what he told a cheering crowd in Washington, DC at WikiCon, maybe that statement was just for effect. Of course, in my opinion this doesn't really solve any of the inherent difficulties of which you speak. (See, if he ran for ArbCom we could ask him these and other things...) Carrite (talk) 12:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Carrite, your development of ESP which allows you to see into the motivations of other editors is a wonderful asset that should be put to use. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't take ESP, he said it on camera, anybody can take a listen. Carrite (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

In the Signpost I stated my position "They don’t need to all be women, although that would send a loud and clear message to all concerned. They don’t need to all be feminists. All they need is to be committed to stopping the bullying." In my 1-minute comment in DC, I was trying to convey that women needed to do more than complain - they need to find candidates and vote. I think almost everybody has gotten that message. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Carrite and TheRedPenOfDoom, you should run too. There's zero merit in sitting on the sidelines complaining about how others got it wrong. Go and fix it, and take Smallbones with you. At present I suspect you'd all win easily. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd absolutely run as part of a slate. Oh, wait, slates are banned, aren't they? No wonder the result is such a mess... No sane person would want to be part of the ridiculously dysfunctional institution that has emerged, and it takes 8 votes to fix it — with basically zero reformers on board now. The lowly state of the institution is ultimately the responsibility of the sitting committee, which has absolutely run the franchise into the ground. It is getting to the point where only nihilism makes sense: ArbCom needs to be blown up and started over. Voting NO for everybody and leaving more than half the seats unfilled might send a message. It has been suggested elsewhere... Carrite (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I am with Carrite on the NO ON EVERYONE slate. I have no interest in participating in an institution which has dug itself into a hole time and time again and whose only solutions have been "Dig faster!" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Carrite: What makes you think "slates" are banned? They are not, as far as I know. You don't get bracketed on the ballot, but you can identify yourself as part of a group. Some people don't like people running as a group, perhaps enough people feel that way to make it unlikely that a "slate" or any of its members would get elected, but it is not "banned." Neutron (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Gimme Dennis Brown. Gimme Drmies. Gimme Wehwalt. Gimme New York Brad. Gimme Scott Martin. Gimme Worm That Turned. Gimme Roger Davies. Then I'd run and the piece of crap could be fixed. Carrite (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm grateful, but I think I'm best placed doing what I'm doing.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I feel the same way about my own WP work. Unfortunately, we have a system in which writers write, copyeditors edit, administrators administrate, and it takes a lawyer or a lunatic to want to serve on ArbCom. And there sure as hell aren't enough lawyers... Carrite (talk) 13:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

In agreement with Euryalus. If yas don't have problems with giving over personal info to WMF? then by all means run for Arbcom. GoodDay (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

For the most part, it's not WMF I'm afraid of. If I were on arbcom, and pissed someone off? I'm all but certain that people would be knocking on my door, irl, or calling my employer. And that's happened to sitting arbs, in the past. I don't think the WMF would abuse my identity - it's wikipedians I don't trust. Which is a shame, as I'm tempted to take a crack at it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Yep. (The WMF is nothing to be afraid of, characterized--from my point of view--mostly by inactivity.) And some of those Wikipedians are Legion, literally--I got two masters of extensive sock farms harassing me. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, the editors who've been the most vocal in their criticism of Arbcom, should (themselves) be running for Arbcom. They've talked the talk, now it's time for them to walk the walk. Complaining won't solves anything. Take the bull by horns & just do it, folks. GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

It's all about politics and counting votes. Nothing good is going to come from the next ArbCom. Nothing. I've got an encyclopedia to help write. Carrite (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

As others suggested above, the best thing to do right now is to vote against all candidates. Voting in new faces has never helped to address the ArbCom's fundamental problems. I would be willing to vote for a candidate who makes a firm pledge to conduct all deliberations on-wiki, but everyone else gets an automatic no vote. Everyking (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

There are quite a few things that pass though the arb list that are not ready for prime time and could lead to a variety of problems if aired in public. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 21:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Undoubtedly. Confidential information must be kept confidential. But the ArbCom could conduct the overwhelming majority of its business out in the open without compromising anyone's privacy. So why not? Everyking (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I haven't been an arb, but ArbCom is where to go with information that simply needs to be kept secret--in some cases, for the benefit of the editor one is charging with certain misdeeds. Drmies (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but deliberations can be in public except for confidential information that can be reviewed in "executive session" so to speak. The problem is that otherwise people have no idea how arbcom reaches its decisions in these cases. Sometimes they seem totally arbitrary. Coretheapple (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Evereyking I have gone as far down that route as I feel I can. Perhaps you can persuade other candidates to adopt the same undertakings. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC).

If Smallbones is concerned with bullying, their first step should be to stop acting like a bully [1]. WP:BANREVERT says to remove comments, and if Smallbones was simply removing edits by those-who-have-sorta-talkpage-banned-by-Jimbo -- preferrably with a neutral edit summary --I'd be supportive. Rather, they replace the comments with statements in the form of "Removed comment by Naughty, signed Smallbones_(smalltalk)," which reads like grandstanding "Look at me removing comments from him, who is bad person, inferior to us enlightened folk!" nonsense. NE Ent 14:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

When a troll who had twice previously been told by Jimmy to stay off this page, responds to Jimmy's "Please go away, then" by accusing Jimmy of "utter arrogance", then I think spelling it out to the troll was necessary. The troll then went to my talk page twice and then to ArbCom for further clarification. I think he understands now. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree. I've been on a break lately but still managed to get an IP death threat for reverting vandalism. Sometimes you can just walk away, other times you can't. Sometimes, the bully, as a calculated atrocious prick, choses their words before walking the ferrets, and avoid bans that IPs would be struck down for. No use pretending WP or ArbCom has it worked out, they don't. But there's also no point pretending WP, like the rest of the web, isn't changing. Time is on the side of those who want a fairer volunteer workspace. AnonNep (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Inmates have started running the asylum?

"Wikipedia never solved the problem of how to organize itself in a way that didn’t lead to mob rule." - Mr L. Sanger (based in Ohio). Is he right? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC) [2], etc. etc.

No. Wikipedia much more resembles a Xeer Kritarchy who are themselves subject to the Rule of law. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

And, to me, Wikipedia resembles, The Tyranny of Structurelessness! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 18:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You are nothing if not an optimist, Guy. But in this case, I'm afraid it's misplaced. petrarchan47คุก 22:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

... oh wow. I never knew about the Xeer, and is indeed remarkably parallel in its conceptual framework to what seems to have naturally (and independently) evolved on Wikipedia (and most other projects). I need to dig into what research has been done on the history and evolution of that system to learn more about it. — Coren ^(talk) 14:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Do the Xeer make it up as they go along while being accountable to nobody yet complaining they are only volunteers? If so, I agree. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You are describing the wikishadow government, who quietly alter thousands of pages to remove various templates, or widely censor some concepts to appear "not covered" by Wikipedia. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Larry Sanger is always right. "Is Wikipdia an asylum? and mob rule?": well if you read WP:PITCHFORKS enough it certainly starts to resemble one, with mobs taking pot shots at one annother. But it's a very serious asylum, and I'd imagine an actual asylum to be more fun. "Run by the inmates" well yes, except when the men in white coats (the WMF) turn up with "office actions" which of course doesn't please the mob/asylum inmates much.

Wikipedia: you can come inside, it has nice whitewashed walls and everything, but once committed you can never leave... --Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

... and I thought the wiki servers were based in Ashburn, Virginia. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

You would have to be crazy to live in Ohio. Just saying. Viriditas (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

"Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.” —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Good point, of course, but Mr Sanger seemed more alarmed at "mob rule and anti-elitism". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The Goddess forbid anyone should sidestep the theoretical & actually, y'know, DO something. *rolleyes* AnonNep (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I think at this point, with 200+ projects and 5M English articles, it's probably not possible to turn the ship around without accompanying damage. You get this large and you work on incremental changes not radical restructuring. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Meh...I have a feeling if the next couple of ArbCom creations continue to be ineffective and unable(or unwilling) to implement common sense, basic workplace/volunteer measures to make sure that the project is more than just another version of Usenet/IRC etc., the Foundation will probably be forced to start hiring an oversight committee. They can still call it ArbCom or whatnot, but it may be a version with paid WMF staff overseeing the issues. Or maybe with a 15 member ArbCom they can use 6-7 elected members and 7-8 paid staff. I doubt they allow the project to continue to devolve into some type of mob rule BBS board. Dave Dial (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

But while the English Wikipedia is the largest, it's just one of 200+ projects that fall under the Wikimedia banner. What sort of precedence would it set for the WMF to pour money into one project and not the others? I think this is why most money goes towards technical improvements (which may or may not be improvements!) because they can be deployed across multiple projects, there is less favoritism. It seems like so often, editors think that the English Wikipedia=WMF when the WMF have larger concerns than the relative success of one project even if it is the flagship one. Plus, since recent stats show an increase in active editors over 2014 numbers, they might not even believe there are problems here. I mean, there have been much tougher times than the present day in Wikipedia's history. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

What percentage of donated funds come from the banners and such on enwp? Surely if we're talking fair the funds breakdown should somewhat mirror the fund raising? 71.11.1.204 (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@DD2K: To go from Usenet to Facebook, from IRC to Twitter -- that is not a step forward but a step far, far backward. The only thing to recommend it is that a handful of good manipulators made themselves a lot of money. But Wikipedia does need to take the lesson that anarchism's main vulnerability is its extraordinary rigidity. Usenet went a long time without introducing obvious mechanisms to improve performance like enabling servers to implement client-directed screening for excessive crossposts, bleeding users all the way. Wikipedia can't neglect development that allows users more control - most notably, it should go toward a more Usenet-like model that allows there to be more than one "latest correct version" of an article, leaving the user to pick whose authority and whose rules determine which that version is. If Wikipedia could shatter the political and financial force of this centralized power, it could get out from under the resource curse that leads people here to endless warfare. Wnt (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

That is backwards to me. Without control, it's anarchy. There are already too many children and such making decisions for this project. Using Usenet and IRC as successful endeavors seems like a sure blueprint for failure. I have seen too many children and child-like members of ArbCom making immature and reckless decisions, but using procedure and legal-like languages to make it as if there is strong basis for these decisions. Despite the fact that we are often left with no real solutions, just more of the same old same old with another case. Just put a new number at the end and try again. I left the Usenet, IRC and message board culture to get away from that type of atmosphere. Wikipedia goals and guidelines seem be a worthwhile attempt to establish something the World needs. If people want a social networking, trolling/lulz type atmosphere, perhaps we should either change the scope of this project, or those people should find a new place. Smh... Dave Dial (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Not only do the inmates run this joint, they built and own it... You don't have to be crazy to be a Wikipedian, but it does make it less painful. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Response to your email

Dear Mr.Wales I received your request and I happily contribute. Wikimedia has done a great job and is something truly special. --Have a great day :) , Sanjev Rajaram (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Wales:Oliver::Lincoln:Kennedy

In the vein of the long-running urban legend about Lincoln and Kennedy's lives being similar to each other, [3] I have decided to compile some similarities between Mr. Wales' life, and that of John Oliver (comedian).

• They were both the oldest of four children, and they both had at least one educator parent. [4] (Oliver had two, but Wales had one, his mother). [5]
• Oliver, who is British, is married to Kate Norley, an American woman, while Wales, who is American, is married to Kate Garvey, a British woman. Note also that their wives both have the same first name.
• Oliver was born in the UK but now lives in America. Wales was born in America but now lives in the UK.
• Of course these are all coincidences, but it's still interesting, at least to me. I hope the other readers of this page, particularly Wales himself, will agree. Everymorning (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Most striking is the hidden fact that both Oliver and Wales have secret secretaries named John Hay and John Nicolay. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

You left out the most obvious parallel involving art centers; the Lincoln Center:the Kennedy Center::the Oliver Center:the Wales Centre. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

OMG I love this so much.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Some 2 millennia ago someone made a business out of such comparisons, see Parallel Lives. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The Kennedy-Lincoln thing is not exactly an urban legend. Snopes chops the list down into the component parts and shows why each one by itself is not so remarkable, and also shows that a few of them are either probably incorrect or at least questionable. But if you take the main items that are unquestionably true, together, the odds that all these things would be true is not great. Two men, first elected President exactly 100 years apart, were assassinated on the same day of the week and both replaced by men named Johnson - the only Johnsons ever to become president. I think there is a "wow" factor right there, even forgetting about everything else. (And I personally would add the theater-warehouse warehouse-theater thing to the list, though as Snopes points out, that is somewhat a matter of interpretation.) I am not suggesting that this is any more than a series of coincidences, but it is a highly unlikely series of coincidences. As for John Oliver and Jimbo Wales, I'll leave that for other historians to deal with. I'd be more impressed if their wives had a name a little less common than "Kate". Neutron (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

There is a problem with the concept "highly unlikely series of coincidences". Consider a golfer who hits a ball which lands in the middle of a fairway. When the golf ball lands it touches one individual blade of grass before any other -- maybe just a nanosecond sooner, but one blade gets touched first. What are the odds that the ball would first touch that one blade of grass instead of any other? Millions to one. But does that mean that the ball landing involves any highly unlikely coincidences? No, because it was certain to hit a blade of grass. Likewise with Kennedy-Lincoln. Same day of the week could have been same day of the month, same hour of the day, same minute, same weather, undertaker with the same last name -- the list of possible coincidences that didn't happen goes on and on. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree completely, which is why I think of this as a harmless bit of enjoyable fun. I suspect if you try, it's pretty easy to find remarkable coincidences in a fair number of cases.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Kind of disturbing that you would compare two people that were assassinated to two living people. Kind of fatalistic. Future Prince of Wales married a Kate as well. At least they are still alive. Now if both had stalkers named "John Wilkes Harvey Oswald," I think you;d have something. --DHeyward (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

When I met the Duke of Cambridge at a meeting about his charity (I suggested that he back a Wiki Loves Monuments global photo competition on conservation, but nothing came of it unfortunately), I mentioned that he uses "Wales" as his surname in his military career, and so in a way his wife is Kate Wales, like mine. It's not actually correct, of course, not least of which because my wife doesn't go by "Kate Wales" but it was fun to say. But... John Oliver is alive, so I'm not bothered by the parallel drawing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Both Jimbo Wales and John Oliver have ten letters in their names.
• Both Jimbo Wales and John Oliver wear glasses
• Both have a connection to two other people with a strong connection; Wales helped found an encyclopedia which has Kennedy as an entry, Oliver played a character named Booth Wilkes John.
• Oliver helped support the constitutional rights of the residents of Guam, but has never visited Guam, Wales has never visited Guam.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Email from Jimmy Wales with tracking link

According to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Yearly appeal (posted by PRL42), some users are receiving an email asking for a donation. The problem is that (apparently) the email has a donation link which appears to go to wikimedia.com, but which actually links to links.wikimedia.mkt4477.com. Some email clients flag such an email as a possible scam, and phab:T114010 indicates that some recipients of the email are concerned, so various fixes are being considered. Are emails with tracking links really necessary? Johnuniq (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Note that https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T114010 never considers the option of not tracking -- it just assumes that tracking is desirable and discusses the best way to do it. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that it is not the inclusion of tracking links per se that is the problem. It is the fact that the text for one of the links is a URL ("https://donate.wikimedia.org"). This is, of course, a signature for phishing scams - although there are obviously legitimate reasons for doing this. The problem could be rectified in moments by simply changing the text that shows as a URL to say something like 'Click here to donate'. PRL42 (talk) 07:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the details of the decision making on this, but there are a lot of really obvious reasons to use tracking links for A/B testing. One of the core goals of the fundraiser is to raise funds with a minimum of intrusion - so emails that work better are obviously desirable. Emails with usability problems, or messages that don't appeal to donors, are not good as they force us to run more banners, or make do with less money.

Obviously, if they are being done in a way that causes people to fear a scam, that is bad. I've never heard of 'mktr4477.com' but if I see a link with text that says 'donate.wikimedia.org' and I hover over it and see 'mktr4477.com' I'm going to worry - and I'm hoping that my email client will worry too, and warn me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)