User talk:Jimbo Wales

Are persons with advanced permissions exempt from WP:DISCLOSE?

Some weeks ago, in a discussion at Talk:Wikipediocracy, User:Alison disclosed she was site cofounder. After she declined to do so, I placed her name in a connected contributor template at the top of the page per the guideline. Alison and others immediately treated that as a joke, adding nonconflicted editors. Alison herself has edit warred to remove the template after she and others crammed it with the names of nonconflicted editors. I view this situation as an editor with advanced permissions and many friends avoiding basic COI rules. My question is, do we give editors of long and distinguished service, and advanced permissions, a de facto exemption from WP:DISCLOSE? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Coretheapple (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

No. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

A related question:

Do we disregard only the “foes” part of the COI guideline "You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family, friends or foes”? If the guideline applies to Alison, then it must apply equally to Coretheapple, who makes no bones about regarding WO as a foe, yet fights tooth and nail against being held accountable to the guideline, and refuses to share a Connected Contributor template, which he wishes to keep in situ at the WO article talk page, with Alison.

Note: There is a Connected Contributor template /COI discussion at Talk:Wikipediocracy, including a common-sense solution in the form of a notice suggested by N Ent, which Coretheapple rejected as a substitute for the Connected Contributor template; and Smallbones opened another discussion on the same topic at COIN. Writegeist (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Honest to gosh, Mr. W, I have been as clear as crystal about my total indifference about the very sparse and rather old static about my username on an external site. I have said that much worse comes at me here, where it doesn't matter either because this is my hobby. I am not here to protect an article about a site I founded. I am not here to rake in bucks, as some other editors are. yadda yadda. I don't much care for editors claiming to have COI to disrupt the discussion on that page (as you and other editors have done), but I view that as a user conduct issue, it does not make me a "foe" of the article you are protecting.

And I might add, the efforts of you and other article WP:OWNers to stick my name on that template was removed by an administrator as a violation of WP:CIVIL, and it was further explained to the bunch of you on COIN that I do not have a COI. After that, you switched tactics, came up with a special, custom-made template for that article and that article alone, which would defeat the purpose of WP:DISCLOSE by not in fact, disclosing the identity of the editors who really are conflicted. And it goes on and on and on. You guys just simply do not want WP:COI applied where your pals and your favorite site are concerned. Coretheapple (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The leitmotif in your Wikipedia hobby is the obsessional vendetta against COI and paid editing. You hate paid editing. You rage against it. You recently declared Wikipediocracy “a veritable Mission Control for paid editing, and in a very cynical fashion at that.” So it’s silly to pretend you don’t regard as opponents those whom you see as cynical perpetrators and enablers of a practice you detest—a practice you've been battling for years. Of the numerous episodes that lend the lie to the denial, two stand out: earlier this year one admin reverted your edits to MyWikiBiz (founder and owner: Gregory Kohs) as “POV additions dangerously close to a BLP vio”; and another, rolling back your BLP vio edits there, described your work on the article as “a BLP hatchet job”. Your response: “I thought my edits were pretty good. Of course, I usually feel that way.” Writegeist (talk) 08:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Core's edits to that article were approved by an RfC, so your selective rendition of history is disingenuous. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

(inserting) Sorry about that. Thank you for pointing out the RfC. Unfortunately I took the article off my watch list after that intervention by the administrators—up until then I’d viewed Coretheapple as a fellow of high principle who went in hard but fair. I regret I didn’t see the RfC until you drew my attention to it, so I didn’t know that thereby a consensual legitimacy had been conferred on what the administrators saw as BLP vios and a “hatchet job”—I assure you I’m not the kind of person to make a deliberate attempt to mislead in order to win an argument (and I know what it’s like to be on the receiving end of that). I’d go so far as to say that, even if I was, say, ridiculed and vilified in public by a hostile crowd kicking me in the nuts and yelling that I have an undeservedly high opinion of my own importance, and that I’m a petty bullshitter, a loser, a cesspit full of turds, three kind of shit in a two-shit bag, a fuckstick, a smug brainless fool, a petty incompetent, a rotten, malicious character, a nasty bullying halfwit spewing bile, or any other horrible thing you can think of, and even if those guys offered money to the first person to track me down at home, or—OK, enough, you get the idea—well, even then, and even if I thought it might serve my purpose to claim I didn’t see them as antagonists in any way or that I didn’t feel any antagonism towards them in return, I promise you I wouldn’t do that. Seriously! i wouldn't! I'd come clean, and to Hell with the consequences! That's how I roll! So although I can see how you might have thought my post was disingenuous, I assure you it wasn’t. Writegeist (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

You lost me halfway through but I do appreciate the clarification. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

You wouldn’t have got lost if you’d spotted the thread provided by Coretheapple’s detractors at Wikipediocracy. It’s the April 2015 thread “Paid Editing / Coretheapple”, from which I borrowed the epithets (targeted there at Coretheapple) that Coretheapple dismisses above as “very sparse and rather old static” and towards which he feigns “total indifference’” (who is he trying to kid?) in order to evade the very obvious facts that (1) Wikipediocracy is (one of?) his “foe(s)” (to use the COI guideline word), therefore (2) he has a COI and should not edit the article directly, and (3) if he’s determined to have a Connected Contributor (i.e. COI) template on the article talk page, he should be on it. Fair's fair. Putting it as charitably as I can, I’m perplexed by his refusal to come clean about this. The only reasonable explanation that seems to fit is that he regards the template as a badge of shame, at the same time as insisting it isn't. Writegeist (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

That's been thoroughly hashed out at COIN, with a determination that Core does not go in the template, and his placement there was removed by administrator action. I fear also you may be conflating distress with editor behavior with hostility to the article subject. Given the cross-pollination between the two that's understandable. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

For absolute clarity: The crux of Coretheapple’s COI really has nothing to do with whatever feelings or indifference he declares. The COI rests not on his emotional response (or indifference) to Wikipediocracy’s commentary on him, but on the nature of the commentary itself. Would any reasonable person reading the epithets listed in my small font post see them as indicative of neutrality towards him or as indicative of opposition/antagonism/enmity/disgust etc? Obviously the latter. Equally clearly therefore Wikipediocracy is a foe of Coretheapple’s, and he has a COI in relation to editing the article. He should man up now, declare the hitherto concealed and oft-denied COI, and add himself to the template that he’s so keen to keep in situ. Writegeist (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

How many times have you repeated that point? Enough already. You guys just don't let up. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 00:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

That is correct. It was one of those things that never happens, which is a bad administrator call. My dear Mr. Writegeist, I used to have an essay on my talk page on paid editing. It is gone. I used to participate very actively in the discussions, still ongoing and very active, on paid editing. I no longer do. I used to patrol this page for depredations by a well known banned paid editor. Ditto. Not doing it anymore. I have been quite clear that I view this as a Jimbo/Foundation problem. I know you would love me to hate that off-wiki site, these people, these entities, but the only malice I see is what is directed at me from the editors controlling that article. Coretheapple (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

It would be great if anyone with a COI on Wikipediocracy simply ceased editing the article on it, per standard practice about people or organisations that editors have a direct association with. That includes people with roles in the site's administration, and people who feel so strongly about it that they can't edit it neutrally. No especial need to flag them all in templates, let's just have regard for apparently non-neutral editing in the article like we would on any other page. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

We have gotten to this point because Alison, the site founder, and her friends are adamant about their desire to control the article on the talk page and edit it. The template would not be an issue except for that. I'm really maxed out on the arrogance and hypocrisy I've encountered on that page. At the COIN discussion, a supporter posited that COI only matters for harmful edits. If so, what is the point of the guideline? These people have sought to manufacture a COI for Core by attacking him on the site, and I'm sure I'm next. I think Jimbo needs to state whether it is kosher for a checkuser to disregard the COI guideline. If so, I certainly won't pursue this further but it's not a great precedent. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

COI applies to anyone with a COI, regardless of whether it is positive or negative. But the CU status is a red herring. No one is suggesting there has been a misuse of the CU tool. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I assume he's referring to WP:ADMINCOND, which requires (with a straight face) that administrators "are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities." Etc. But note - aha! - that WP:COI is a guideline, not a policy. So it doesn't matter and the flabby and non-compulsory language of the guideline has been pointed out to me at the COI/N discussion. So I guess the question is whether admins need to lead by example on COI. In my experience, unrelated to this article, the answer is an emphatic no. In fact, I have found that admins with COI feel that they are privileged characters, and that they can slip-side past COI rules. After all, they know the rules, and they know how weak they are. Some example! Again, I am thinking of a much, much worse situation than this one. But the principle is the same, as is the admin not giving a shit about COI and getting oodles of support in that position. Coretheapple (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• I am not "the site founder" - please stop repeating this bare-faced lie across multiple pages. Now, it's here on on Jimbo's talk page. Also, I was not informed that I was being discussed here - not cool - Alison ^❤ 00:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Egad! I was wrong. It was a LIE with a capital L. Yes you are merely CO-founder. Changes everything. Totally. Sorry. So sorry. So very very very sorry. Coretheapple (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved administrator please step in here? This is two days past ridiculous. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 01:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

To deal with the disruptive behavior on the Wikipediocracy talk page (cramming names into the "conflicted contributor" template) that you admitted here ("I was being POINTy"). ? Yes, overdue. The only admin action taken so far on that page has been to reverse your edit putting me in the COI template, as a violation of WP:CIVIL as well as WP:COI. Coretheapple (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I was referring to the vitriolic tone you have used in this discussion, your hounding of Alison, and your battleground approach (including that rather silly point scoring you're trying to apply to me). --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 15:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, by hounding and vitriolic tone are you referring to [1] concerning a post not referring to her either directly or indirectly? By vitriolic do you mean "baying wolves" or this edit summary. And then we have this edit, reversed by an administrator as violating WP:CIVIL and WP:COI? I have more examples, from other editors, apart from your comment that you were being deliberately disruptive, but that's a start. Coretheapple (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

This^ is a prefect example of why it's been impossible to have a cool-headed discussion of the issue when you jump in, and it's why an uninvolved administrator should see to your needs. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 16:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It's difficult to have a "cool headed conversation" because you and others protecting that page use terms like "baying dogs"? Yes, possibly, that's a factor. In this very conversation, Alison referred to a minor slip ("founder" instead of "co-founder") as a "bare-faced lie." Yes, that kind of overheated rhetoric does hamper "cool-headed conversation." SB_Johnny, while we're on the subject, why do you keep personalizing the discussion while then complaining that the discussion is personalized? Coretheapple (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Another example^. You can stop now. (Also it's baying wolves, not dogs. The zoot suit may or may not have been implied.) --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 18:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know, I could quote from the Sermon on the Mount and you'd be saying "another example^." Coretheapple (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

SB Johnny, I think we get the point that you don't like Core and everything he writes is bad. Give it a rest, please. Right now the only user whose input is requested is Jimbo. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, Figureofnine, I'll duck back out. Please ping me if a real discussion starts somewhere on the subject and I'll weigh in there. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 21:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Also I noticed this post in response to a civil and serious post Figure made on Alison's talk page, trying to turn the whole thing into a joke. I can't blame FON for coming here in light of that, do you? Futile and all, but understandable. Coretheapple (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think you guys might be surprised to learn who actually were the "founders/cofounders" of that swank site. And also disappointed, since they don't have active accounts on Wikipedia that you can harass. Cla68 (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• When Alison disclosed she was co-founder of her site, she said "we all know that." Are we all supposed to know the other co-founders of her site? Coretheapple (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alison: Of course I'm not surprised Figureofnine Coretheapple didn't notify you. That's just also how he Coretheapple rolls: like how, while the template discussion was ongoing, he secretly started this discussion at WT:COI, which is clearly aimed at you and I and other people from this.  — Scott • talk 11:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC) Corrected. All these weird screen names look alike to me.  — Scott • talk 13:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Tell you what, I'm going to make a proposal. Alison and Coretheapple, leave each other alone and leave the article alone as well. Clearly, there are issues being caused, so remove yourselves from it and hopefully the drama will die down. This sort of thread is what is making Wikipedia look more and more silly to those who browse past the articles..... Mdann52 (talk) 08:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't ping Alison because she has not responded to numerous pings on this subject and, except for snark and inflammatory edit summaries, has never commented on her editing the article on a site she cofounded, except to say indignantly on her user talk page that she will continue to do so. In that position she has substantial support from the editors controlling that article. Core is incomplete on one point: Alison as well as SB Johnny were reversed by an admin for playing games with the template on that page. That kind of behavior is why I asked for an opinion from Jimbo. (And contrary to Alison's response above it is not forum shopping to come here.) Are people of advanced permissions expected to set an example on COI? Is it reasonable to expect that administrators will not directly edit articles on subjects with which they have a direct connection? I would like Jimbo to address this please. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course it was forum shopping. The same points are already being discussed at Talk:Wikipediocracy, User talk:Alison, WT:COI and WP:COIN. Having not liked the response received at any of those venues, you decided to raise them here for a fifth bite at the cherry... WJBscribe (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

This is where matters stand at Alison's talk page. Productive! At WT:COI, Alison came by to scream at me for referring to her, which I did not. It was nice to see a direct statement from that account, as ordinarily she only communicates by edit summary. At COIN, the only editor on the Alison team to make a substantive posting was you, and you said in sum and substance that COI was voluntary, only mattered as icing on caKe in the case of edits violating policy, and essentially that it has all the force of an essay. So that's where we stand. As for this discussion, my experience is that wild horses wouldn't drag Jimbo into a discussion such as this, but there's no harm in trying. And no, it is not forum shopping. It is never forum shopping to post on this page. Ever.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC) Of course, I'm sure you can look into the Wikilaw books and find an escape clause in there somewhere, as you have striven to do with WP:COI. Coretheapple (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe we've communicated prior to the discussions in relation to Wikipediocracy, but I find your approach here combative and unhelpful. Wikipedia is not a battleground for you to work through whatever issues you have with other editors/websites. Read back some of your posts and tell me if you think they set an appropriate collaborative tone. Because I disagree with you, you have dismissed me as part of "the Alison team". I have pointed out that WP:COI is a guideline should be applied with common sense, which you choose to represent as me saying that it has "all the force of an essay". Please do me the courtesy of not grossly misrepresenting my position. Your final straw is now to suggest, even before I have responded to your latest point, that I am going to engage in some elaborate form of wikilawyering. WJBscribe (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I've said four or five times that there is no Wikipediocracy "battleground" between me and that website, only that which is in the imaginations of people like yourself, the non-members of the Alison team. I know why you've chosen to misrepresent my concerns about puffery and COI in that article, and I imagine that is pretty much all you can do because there is nothing else to say. The COI guideline is clear, and your efforts to wikilawyer it so that it does not apply in a clearcut situation, ditto. Coretheapple (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

WJBscribe, as you've just experienced, using strawman rejoinders is a favorite debate tactic of Wikipedians. Cla68 (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Quite well established that it isn't. Note the FOF in the Banning Policy arbitration. I didn't come for anything more than an opinion from Jimbo. But while we are here, I have a proposed solution: instead of her friends going on the offensive and coming up with reasons for her not to comply, Alison complies with WP:COI. She confines her contributions in that article to the talk page. She makes the other disclosures required by the guideline, on the article talk page and her user page. That would resolve matters. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

As WJBscribe points out, after you didn't get what you wanted at COIN, you came here to get it: This dispute has become so ridiculous, and the number of administrators involved so high, that I've thrown it on Jimbo's lap. We can carve out a special exemption for Alison but let it be Jimbo's doing. And you claim not to be forum shopping. Now who's being disingenuous?  — Scott • talk 15:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you think figureofnine is trying to "get," as both the main COIN discussion and the subset were both initiated by other editors. And note above the "never forum shopping" quote from Jimbo above. Coretheapple (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring the personalities (please), it is pretty simple, really. COI disclosure belongs on an article talk page, where the COI editor has participated, this is true even if they are an admin. Disclosing COI is what we want on our talk pages. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

This rewrite of the connected contributor template is what the Wikipediocracy article regulars want on the talk page in lieu of the standard template. I think that's what Figure might have meant when he used the word "ridiculous" to describe the degeneration of the situation. Coretheapple (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

That, uh, creative one-off, makes no sense. Its, 'everyone has a POV' disclaimer - is not informative of anything and thus useless or worse - we already know everyone has a POV. Just use article talk templates, like any other talkpage - Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

That uninformative template is on the page, along with the standard one, and there are periodic edit wars to have the standard one taken off. Coretheapple (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You say "use article talk templates." Hello? That's what everyone is screaming about. They no like. They like their own. Coretheapple (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Tell them to stop screaming, and just use the template that discloses the User's COI - remind them we are here to provide information, not legal disclaimer. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Look, here's the timeline: first they accepted the standard template, but only if I was in it. They were reverted on that by an admin. Smallbones took it to COIN. You and others told them no. Then someone came up with this ridiculous template to replace the standard one. Then there was asn edit war over removing of the standard template. Then Figure came here. That's the situation at this point in time. Coretheapple (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: Since you are already participating in the COIN discussion on this article you may already have a sense of the kind of unreasonableness prevalent among the editors there . As you know, one can tell COI editors about the guideline until one is blue in the face and it doesn't matter if they are intent on disregarding it. In this instance, the majority of the editors are so wrapped up in the subject that they have declared their COI. Their position is that their COI should not be disclosed, however, they're against that. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Figureofnine, why is it so important to have this debate in three places? pablo 13:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

This is the first debate on this COI issue that I initiated. The COIN debates were launched by Core and Small. The talk page discussion of the custom COI template was launched by NE Ent. If you read my first post here you can see why I came here. We are having a discussion in now three places because of one administrator's refusal to abide by the COI guideline. Yes I feel that is something deserving of Jimbo input. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Because what it looks like is a group of editors (you, "Core" and "Small") continuing to raise the same issue at different venues in the hope of eventually getting the answer you are looking for (which I assume is not the answer(s) you have already got). pablo 14:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

FON naively believes that because there has been administrator misconduct that Jimbo is going to give a hoot. Please be kind to him. I once came here because I felt that there was some kind of evil machination going on in an article and good heavens! The silence from Mr. Wales was deafening. One must learn these things firsthand I guess. Coretheapple (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

There's really not much here for Jimmy to comment on as it stands. There probably is a philosophical issue of the sort he comments on buried under all of this, but it's rather hard to see the trees through the weeds at this point. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 15:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I can put the issue even more simply than FON. Does Jimbo approve of this rewrite of the connected contributor template? Is it ever OK? Well do you, Jimbo? @Jimbo Wales: Not a binding opinion but it is the one FON wants. Coretheapple (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I am tempted to request this article be placed under discretionary sanctions. There's no way neutral editors are going to contribute to this war zone. Gamaliel (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Well have at it. Give in to your temptation. There seems to be quite an anti-Wikipediocracy animus going on, although from what I can see the article seems OK and in fact would benefit embiggening from the multiple s0urces covering the subject. pablo 21:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

There's plenty of animus on display from both sides. Gamaliel (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Any steps that will reduce the lack of civility and personalization of the discussion, in multiple venues, would be welcome. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Discretionary sanctions is a favorite tool of yours, isn't it, Gamaliel??? Carrite (talk) 07:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I am puzzled as to why this is on Jimbo's talk page. Does he have special powers? What is he supposed to do about it? Just open an RfC or something. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

It's quite clear why. Just look at the initial post. FON had a good question for which he wanted Jimbo input and was swiftly punished for it. It certainly is not a new question either, in a general sense. That is, whether "vested users(I believe that's the term) and administrators get away with things that mere mortals do not. Coretheapple (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: Unfortunately, you have not answered the question as to what Jimbo is supposed to do about it. WP:COIN exists, WP:RfC exists. WP:NPOVN exists. And WP:ANI exists for user conduct. Why is this here? Much verbiage and no results, is what I'm seeing here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't expect Jimbo to do or say a thing. It was naive of FON to raise the issue here. However, he was well-intentioned and had every right to do so, and his reason for doing so is clearly stated in his initial post. In fact, I'll go a step further: I'd say this outcome, with all the COI editors clamoring around and deliberately making a muck of things, was totally foreseeable. In fact, I'll go yet another step further: while FON was technically correct to add the "connected contributor" template to the article talk page, it was foreseeable that it would create an unholy row, as that article is WP:OWNed by the article subject and its fans and is a lost cause. Coretheapple (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Likewise, I'm puzzled about this being on Wales's talk. But while it is: @Figureofnine: Somewhere above you said of the Coretheapple COI issue that it had been “thoroughly hashed out at COIN”, where it had been "determined" that “Core does not go in the template”. [2]. I’m sorry, I missed that determination at COIN, and I can’t find it though I’ve tried. Would you be so kind as to supply the diff, to show the rationale for the determination?

You also said his “placement there [i.e. on the template] was removed by administrator action”—as indeed it was. IMO the action was erroneous, as at that time the administrator clearly didn’t grasp why Coretheapple should be included, and apparently thought it depended on whether or not he had self-declared a COI. The administrator’s erroneous action was soon reverted by a non-admin, thereby restoring Coretheapple to the template. After that, AFAICT no action was taken to remove him again by the administrator who'd been reverted, or by any other administrator. Without that context—and if my understanding of it is correct—the inference to be drawn from your narrative of events might be rather misleading, which of course I doubt was your intention. Apologies in advance if I’ve misread the COIN discussion or the WO article history. It’s easy to miss even quite significant stuff now and then, as surely you'll agree. Writegeist (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

What's this, the fifteenth time you've repeated yourself on this? The sixteenth? Look, the position taken at COIN was simple: just because Alison started a topic about me on Wikipediocracy that resulted in people throwing crud at me, which I don't care about, that does not mean that I get a COI. No, she is the COI editor. She is the cofounder. Alison hates me. Fine. Her problem. Not mine. Enough nonsense on this please. Coretheapple (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The haranguing schoolmarmish tone (which, along with outbursts of vitriolic antagonism, characterizes so much of your commentary re. Wikipediocracy) makes your replies vaguely amusing—thank you—even though the routine shrill exaggerations (e.g. your "fifteenth/sixteenth time" I've repeated my request for the diff—it's actually, I think, the first repetition; and Alison “screaming” at you is another choice example) tend to undermine the credibility of your take on the realities IMHO. Nevertheless, thank again for your reply on behalf of Figureofnine—such a common practice between you two that I’ve come to think of you as a single entity, "Corefigure", which incidentally sounds terrific if you imagine it sung by Shirley Bassey to the tune of Goldfinger. Unfortunately your reply doesn’t actually answer the question. I find myself sometimes having to repeat myself if I come up against a bad case of IDHT when I've asked for a simple clarification, and this is one of those times: where in the COIN discussion was it determined that Coretheapple has no COI? I can see plenty of argument from Corefigure claiming it, but i can’t find a conclusive determination. I’m sure it’s there, because you both say it is. I just can’t find it. (And surely it would be useful for others reading here to see it.) So I’m waiting for Figureofnine to help me out with a diff as requested. Or for you to—which I suppose is likely, given I asked F first. You have of course omitted to address, let alone counter, the main point in my post, and that's your prerogative. I may or may not reply when one or other of you provides the requested diff. I sincerely hope—if only for the sake of giving the schoolmarm a long-overdue rest—that I won’t have to repeat myself :) Writegeist (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that repeating yourself for the seventh time is probably not a good idea. But here is something I haven't heard you address: Why did you add yourself as a COI editor to the "connected contributor" template and can you please explain your edit summary when you did so? Did you add yourself to that template because you felt in good faith that you had a COI, and if not, why did you do that? Coretheapple (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

So that’s twice I’ve asked for a diff to support what, in the diff’s absence, one might think is a deliberate distortion of the facts if one didn't know better, and twice I’ve been been met by IDHT and misrepresentation (twice is not fifteen, sixteen, or even seven times) in replies that also deny me the courtesy of the requested diff. I’m not interested in going on with this unproductive exchange beyond extending the courtesy of a reply to your own question: we’re known by the company we keep, and as a member of Wikipediocracy I am (1) proud to share the template with the other members listed there, all of whom have earned my respect, (2) likely to have a COI in relation to the article if I contribute to it, and (3) unable to see a reason to be ashamed of any of that. Sky’s blue, sun’s shining, trail’s waiting. Merry Christmas and adios. Writegeist (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Not trying to ignore your question, but I just felt that the comments on that issue, delivered repeatedly by Alanscottwalker, and then by Gamaliel, were clear. I also felt that the nastiness and personalization of the discussion, though common when COI editors are discussing subjects close to them, needed not to be fed. A good holiday to you and my apologies if you felt that I was ignoring you. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

You said it had been “thoroughly hashed out at COIN”, where it had been ”determined" that “Core does not go in the template”—i.e. after thorough discussion of the pros and cons, it was established that he should be excluded. Now you mention comments “delivered repeatedly by Alanscottwalker and then by Gamaliel”, as if they confirm it. (Thank you.) I’ve checked them. Actually no such “determination” was established. There were merely expressions of opinion (plus Gamaliel’s exhortation “let’s all be civil” in an edit summary—Gamaliel’s one and only comment throughout AFAICT, although I may have missed others—when removing Coretheapple from the template, apparently at his request; a change followed of course by non-admin reversion without further admin intervention). Nothing more than that. And certainly no consensus for exclusion. “Nicht daß du mich belogst, sondern daß ich dir nicht mehr glaube, hat mich erschüttert.“ Sorry, it's the time of year. I have a fondness for Stollen, Stille Nacht, heilige Nacht, and The Blue Angel—a cautionary tale for all Wikipedia regulars. Given time and cool heads, trust can be restored. Wishing you a good holiday too. Writegeist (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

On the "related question" -- clearly 'foes' can have a COI, but that COI (as for one which is positive) must be tangible. If someone from the Truman campaign edits Harry Truman's article, that's COI; if an operative of the Dewey campaign edits it (at least while they are contending in an election with each other) that is also COI. However, if someone just really really dislikes Truman, or is his Number One Fan, but not an employee, that is not COI, though of course these should be careful to keep their POV in check. It is not, of course, possible to avoid contributors who have a POV from contributing to an article; otherwise, who would write about ISIS? Wnt (talk) 11:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Case in point: I edited as an IP love me longtime. It took months editing under this nick to learn the finer points of the Wikipedia rules. But, by profession, as a librarian & historian, I always had the 'stick to the reliable source' thing in mind. As a result, despite inadvertently violating Arbcom sanctions as a member (if there is such a thing) of Anonymous (hence the name) I added historical sources (1940's-1970s) from Australia using the National Library of Australia TROVE newspaper digitisation project to Scientology pages. Every addition was a summary of the source & easily evaluated via a linked click-thru. In the years that have gone by not one of those edits has been overturned. I eventually found the Talk page warning & stopped editing on potential COI pages, but then discovered pages such as Landmark, where there were current, not historical, sources that showed the cult giving *coughs* 'training' to politicians & law enforcement (dudes with guns) not only in my country, but my state. I added carefully footnoted additions & they were swept away by a page protection posse, including those who openly espoused & identified with the cult, backed up by some, including a newly elected member of Arbcom, who always sided with the cult even if it meant removing legitimate edits. I've seen COI from both sides. Ultimately - you have the RS sources or you don't. Anything else is an organised power play. I did the wrong thing, early, unknowingly, without revert, & never did it again. Meanwhile well connected editors, admins & even - now - Arbs, can do it constantly, without fear of rebuke. The COI system of enforcement is tragically broken. AnonNep (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

A question

I have a Facebook account - should I avoid editing articles on Facebook, Mark Cheeseburger etc?
I have a couple of Twitter accounts, should I refrain from contributing to articles on Twitter, That Bloke Whose Name Escapes me, etc?
I have a Myspace account though whether it is still active I couldn't say. Should I eschew commenting on Myspace or that bloke Tom who claimed to be my friend?
I have a Wikipediocracy account. Fill in the rest for yourself.
I have a Wikipedia account. Should I disappear in a puff of logic? pablo 23:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

This was my question as well...do we need to poll all editors of the Reddit article if they are active Reddit users? Does this mean they have a conflict of interest? Or exclude all editors who go to Burning Man from editing that article? Or ask that all editors who have strong pro or con feelings about Donald Trump not edit his presidential election page? As Pablo X infers, this low bar for COI would exclude all Wikipedia editors from editing Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Uh, no. The only person ever asked to comply with WP:COI was the site's co-founder. No one else. Other names were added to the "connected contributor" template for purposes of disruption by those persons themselves, users of the site. Some of the edit summaries said "I am Spartacus." Solidarity with the COI editor. Coretheapple (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Alison is one of the site's co-founders (There are a few - not like Wikipedia where there are 1 or 2 depending on who you believe. Get that right at least).
Entertaining though all this is, I think I shall go to bed now, after phoning my broker and checking that I don't have a conflict of interest with my bedroom. I do hope not.  pablo 00:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

That is one heck of an incivil tone.It's immaterial how many cofounders are claimed by the subject of an article. That's my view at least. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 00:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem of COI editing is proportional to the degree of non-NPOV editing of said subject. So if you have a weak connection, but your editing is still heavily biased, it becomes a problem. And likewise if you have a strong connection, but also strong NPOV, no real problem arises, unless a COI between you and the subject is known.

All this WP:COI business is a distraction really: the real problem is WP:NPOV editing. Even if you were the ceo of a company, it wouldn't be a problem editing the article on said company if strict attention was paid to NPOV. The real problem is that non-NPOV editing is sometimes hard to categorise as precisely that, and therefore hard to deal with. If then a COI could be established it becomes far easier to deal with. That's the reason for COI, it's a way of dealing with editing that is not NPOV but hard to categorically assert that it is non-NPOV. And to discourage editing from people who could have a bias.

So if you have a strong COI, and nobody knows about it, but you are sure your editing is unbiased, and you're actually correct, it's not really a problem. Unless you get found out! --Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Well of course that is the philosophical question that has surrounded paid editing and COI editing for years. The counterargument is that readers expect articles written by persons not connected with the article subject. In this instance, it's subject to dispute whether the edits were NPOV or promotional. In a now archived discussion and an RfC, opinion was split as to whether the word "investigate" was neutral. I favored the less POV "discuss." The COI guideline makes no distinction between neutral and POV edits. Likewise, whether the COI contributions on the talk page are NPOV or not also are worth pondering even if one accepts your argument. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The undisclosed CEO edit is a problem, regardless of NPOV; it is a problem of information, whether or not there is an expectation. If you are reading the writing of the CEO in a supposed encyclopedia, that is, itself, information to learn about the subject. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Well I don't agree; if the editing is NPOV I don't see a problem overall, even though it contradicts WP:COI. Also I don't believe that readers have an expectation of COI-free editing; what they do have an expectation is NPOV editing, as, from an information point of view, that's all that matters.

My advice to the above discussion: if you suspect promotional editing, then sure, COI is a good way to go. But if you feel that an editor has a COI, but their editing seems to be NPOV, then it is best to ignore the COI for that particular editor, as it only waters down you arguments towards editors showing clear bias. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Opinion was split = no consensus for the proposition, repeated here, that "investigate", a common English word, is "POV". Hope this helps.  — Scott • talk 12:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it's pretty straightforward: if you have an account on a site like Facebook, and you puff them up in their article, what do you stand to gain from it? They'll own a more valuable site, perhaps, but you'll still be the proud owner of a piddly little blog account designed to track and sell data about who you know. So there's no COI there. In the Wikipediocracy case, the question is, what can a co-founder get out of it? Is there money to be made? It may also be relevant whether you can simply put it on a resume, because I recall there have been cases where the designers of open source software tools have been raked over the coals for putting up articles about their software. I could live with that tendency being dialled back, however, so long as it is done across the board. Wnt (talk) 11:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

There's no money to be made, or a "conflict of interest" at all, since there's nothing at stake of any value. There's certainly interest in the sense of an avocation, but if that's the bar, then Coretheapple certainly belongs on it as much as any of the rest of the people on the template (who listed themselves because they are just as non-conflicted as Alison). More about that on my talk if you're interested. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 14:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

What not one person has mentioned during all of this is the part of WP:COI, WP:EXTERNALREL, that says:

While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopaedia. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest.

Maybe this is because it would be impossible for Figureofnine/Coretheapple/Smallbones to actually demonstrate that latter contention.  — Scott • talk 12:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

COI ordinarily is self-declared, as you did when you added your name to the "connected contributor" template, declaring that you have a close connection with the subject matter. No one has to "demonstrate" that User:Scott has a COI under the guideline as User:Scott said so. Coretheapple (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with what I said. All of you have been completely unable to "reasonably say" that my and her and others' roles at WO undermine our roles as editors at Wikipedia. You can't meet the threshold required by the guideline, as quoted above, to declare that any of us have a COI as it defines one. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You don't even have mundane evidence.

I added myself to that list because I have the same rank at WO as Alison, and if we're going to have an absurd list on the talk page, it might as well mention all of us.  — Scott • talk 17:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect. A COI in reason exists because of the fact of a relationship with an article subject, not because either a state of mind nor the ability to say 'I'm still neutral'. When people declare a COI, it is usually not because they they think what they do lacks neutrality nor integrity, it is because it is information uniquely in their possession, which others learn from knowing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure that's all very interesting. If you want to change the actual definition in our guideline, which I just quoted to you, then best of luck trying.  — Scott • talk 21:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

What definition are you talking about, the definition of "reasonably say"? When the guideline says, COI "involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other relationships" and you are contributing about a subject (website) you co-founded, it is reasonable to say you have a conflict of interest, within that guideline. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

What part of "undermine their primary role as an editor of Wikipedia" is proving difficult for you to grasp?  — Scott • talk 23:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Being involved in "contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other relationships" "undermines public confidence in Wikipedia". The primary role of a Wikipedia editor is to avoid involvement in contributing to those (few) subjects and thereby not undermining public confidence in Wikipedia, and where avoiding is not completely possible to disclose. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

"undermines public confidence in Wikipedia" Finally, you demonstrate the point I'm trying to make here. Your entire argument is based on making stuff up, or as it's also known, hand-waving. Thanks.  — Scott • talk 09:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

No. That is what the guideline says. I did not make that up. That is quoting from the guideline. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It does. But you've not been able to satisfy the definition of a COI (again: "When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role [of editing Wikipedia], the editor has a conflict of interest."), and gone straight to some alleged people reading Talk:Wikipediocracy, having their theoretical confidence in Wikipedia undermined by a completely baseless accusation of a COI. That's not even in the realm of fantasy, it's a fever dream.  — Scott • talk 14:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

No, under that guideline, COI arises upon the very act of editing when the relationship with the subject exists. The COI guideline says that undermines Wikipedia, so should be 1) avoided or 2) disclosed. It applies to all articles not just that article, where a defined relationship exists. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

To cut through the B/S, this is like the problem over at the 'Landmark' related articles, where someone who states they have paid for 'Landmark' courses (& thinks that training is tripple rainbow, dude) patrols the article. Same old. Same old. A Conflict of Interest is a Conflict of Interest. No matter how you wikilawyer it. (I keep away from certain articles for that very reason.) AnonNep (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Come on people, wikilinks! Landmark Worldwide is the article (which is under some sort of Arbcom sanction) and this appears to be the last COIN discussion of it; there is more available by searching the archives. Remember, only you can prevent dramatis interruptus. Wnt (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Friendly reminder - This entire wall of useless verbiage is the result of a COI editor attempting "naming and shaming" on a page of a site he opposes. Proof positive that the worst disruption at WP isn't necessarily the editing that is paid. Carrite (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

What COI does Figureofnine have? As for shaming - that's just a silly claim - who is ashamed of being a co-founder of a website, when they readily say they are. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I think the take-home message from all of this is simple; "Never disclose a potential conflict of interests on Wikipedia. Doing so will result in your being hounded to the ends of hell and back, including four separate major fora, and will likely have you walking around with a bell tied around your neck to warn the populace of your shame and sin." In short, how is it possible to allow individuals to disclose any COI in a manner that will ensure it will not be used as a stick to beat them? It's perfectly okay within policy to edit pages in which you have a declared COI, but WP:NPOV must be paramount. So ... carrot or stick? The reason I'm not wading into the muck here is because it's largely pointless, IMO, is ostensibly a witch hunt and a forum-shopping exercise. Also, my other conflict of interests is sucking away all my free time. Fortunately, I get paid for that, so it gets priority :) - Alison ^❤ 19:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a rather selective rendition of what transpired. You omitted your role in fueling the drama. Let's review.

First, apparently FON made a fuss about you going into the "connected contributor" template. You reacted by adding Stanistani to the COI template with the edit summary It's a well-known fact that that scoundrel, Stanistani, is involved in that wretched hive of scum and villainy, too. Alphabetizing, just to spite him! I was added to the template, someone removed me, and you [3] added me back, with the edit summary let's not do that. It's already been shown, and you don't get to make that call. Openness and transparency!

SB Johnny then removed the entire template. I restored. You edit warred to remove the entire template, with the edit summary this is starting to smack of bullying, "badges of shame" and general silencing of undesirables. Not really the Wikipedia way, is it?

On your user page, FON asked if you would consider recusing. You responded in inflammatory fashion. (Absolutely not! I'll edit as I see fit, under the rules that govern Wikipedia. Same as I've always done. Nor will I be bullied into submission, thanks. And, unlike you baying wolves, I'm open about who I am. If you know me IRL, you'll know why I'm busy ;)

Then on this talk page, above, you said that calling you a "founder" rather than "cofounder" is a "bare-faced lie".

Then you went to the COI talk page[4] to comment on a proposal from me a few weeks ago to prohibit COIs among admins. "What a spiteful little missive. Clearly, you're not beyond bending and shaping policy to remove people you find unpalatable. Yet you don't have the fortitude to actually name those two admins you've come to despise, one of whom happens to be me. What a craven stunt indeed." But as I pointed out, your outburst was not warranted as I was not thinking of you, but paid editing situations, and that the name of those two editors was completely immaterial when drawing up additions to a guideline. Indeed, if I had named them (or you, if that was what I had in mind) it would have been improper.

So you left out the above. My "takeaway" is that this is an ordinary COI situation, with COI editors behaving as COI editors do. Coretheapple (talk) 04:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

^^^^ thus proving my point. Who in their right mind would want to wallow in this?? - Alison ^❤ 07:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Quite. Much like common sense, right minds are in short supply around here.  — Scott • talk 10:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Alison knows her George Bernard Shaw. All the WO contributors here might do well to heed his advice now. Writegeist (talk) 08:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Alison: "This" meaning your personal attacks, inflammatory edit summaries and behavior on the Wikipediocracy talk page and article? Such subjects are off-limits? Coretheapple (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Writegeist: Or, since the self-declared COI editors are all basically saying the same thing, you could appoint a spokesman. Coretheapple (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Global point of view - ???

Hello! I just felt I had to go to the top with this one, so to speak. Someone has written a WP:TVINTL section, and this has suddenly been interpreted as all international broadcast of English speaking TV-series must not be mentioned. (Never mind that most countries uses underlining, not language dubbing..) But is it really of more encyclopedic value, if for instance a British TV-series has been aired in New Zeeland than in the Netherlands ? And what about our global point of view policy ? Thanks ! Boeing720 (talk) 05:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I've come across articles where users gave chapter and verse detail of all the TV stations, reruns etc and this isn't necessary, particularly in the infobox. A TV show should be listed as being a production of the TV company that produced and originally aired it. For example, many BBC shows are shown overseas, but it wouldn't be necessary to say this. The same is true of reruns, as the original air date of the show is the most important.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for this discussion being brought here, Jimbo Wales. I have attempted to discuss this topic over and over again with this disruptive user, who attempts to bend WP:TVINTL to their own users. Someone has not just suddenly written the section, given that it has existed for years. We do not have a global perspective - the English server dictate an English perspective. Alex|The|Whovian 09:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I think AlexTheWhovian has mistunderstood. The language is English, but the perspective is Global. So the main question remains unanswered - Is it of greater encyclopedical value if a British TV-series has been broadcasted in New Zeeland than in the Netherlands ? There are obviously very many contributers who believes this is not the case. But if I exemplified this matter, then AlexTheWhovian just would delete the examples yet again, as he already has done with A Touch of Frost, Midsummer Murders and others. When I tried to discuss with him. In other words, what I attempted to discuss with AlexTheWhovian, just led to to a very disruptive behaviour from him.

To ianmacm - this can most certainly be discussed. About reruns etc, but it has to apply equally for all countries. Boeing720 (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I totally misunderstood "editors are encouraged to instead detail noteworthy (see next paragraph) foreign broadcasts, from English-speaking countries". Extremely hard to misunderstand that. Especially when it was added almost half a decade ago. And I was disruptive? Says the edit-war'er who can't read policy. Alex|The|Whovian 01:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Alex, You have still not answered my question. Is it of greater encyclopedical value if a British TV-series has been broadcasted in New Zeeland than in the Netherlands ? And to "discuss" a matter, and then immediately respond by the deletion of given examples (made by some 50 to 100 other contributers) - that's quite disrupting in my eyes. And the differencies between English Wikipedia and all others wikis is mainly the language. This Wiki is also more thorough about sources than some others. But perspective is World Wide and sources written in other languages are permitted.

To Jimmy Wales - my first entry here was of general matter (and I had previously tried other ways). I didn't mention any names, and it was surely not my intention to discuss this matter with AlexTheWhovian here. I'm sorry for how this question has evolved here. But I still believe the WP:TVINTL section ought to be improved. Thanks. Boeing720 (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, apologies Jimmy Wales; whenever this particular discussion begins to turn out of their favour, the editor here in question begins it anew elsewhere, as they have done at least three times in the past. This is all repeating content for me. In reply to the editor: List the 50 to 100 other contributors. Do not pull fake numbers out to base your discussions on, that is lying. Yes, it is of "greater encyclopedical value" when it comes to the English server. Pointing out that you think that this wiki is more thorough than others is your own point of view - they do not includes content relating to us, we do not include content relating to them. Perspective = English. That's literally it. Can't get it through your head? Take it to the talk page for WP:TVINTL if you think a long-standing policy should be changed. Alex|The|Whovian 00:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not lying, and you know it ! Instead of discussing the matter, including the examples of "Broadcasting lists" of four British TV-series broadcasted in many European countries, you just deleted them. Each of those four TV-series was noted to have been broadcasted in 10-20 countries each. My estimation 50-100 is built on 4 (TV series) times 10 to 20 (broadcasting countries outside the UK). Of the four was A Touch of Frost, Wire in the Blood, Midsummer Murders and one more (which I can't recall right now) mentioned by me. And generally one single user can only add his own country to a such list (and possibly also a neighbouring country, but that's rare). So you have indeed destroyed the work of many other editors. And especially "Wire in the Blood" is translated very differently in different countries. In Swedish "Mord i sinnet" which means "Murder in mind". I found it very interesting to compare such translations between different languages. But that is something which well can be discussed. But by deleting as much as possible, it stands clear to me that you are more interested in decideing than discussing. Boeing720 (talk) 04:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

This kid just doesn't get it. I'm done with this. I'm banging my head against a brick wall. If they push the breaking of policy further, they'll be reverted and reported. Alex|The|Whovian 00:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

This type of information is given on IMDb but it isn't necessary for a Wikipedia article to have it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Kazakhstan Firewall

You wrote in 2012:

The Wikimedia Foundation has zero collaboration with the government of Kazakhstan. Wikibilim is a totally independent organization. And it is absolutely wrong to say that I am "helping the Kazakh regime whitewash its image". I am a firm and strong critic. At the same time, I'm excited by the work of volunteers, and I believe - very strongly - that an open and independent Wikipedia will be the death knell for tyranny in places like Kazakhstan. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it is absolutely silly to suggest that I'm in any way actively supporting tyrants.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

How's that working out? The NY Times writes (3 December 2015):

Government officials in Kazakhstan are borrowing a page from China, quietly devising their own version of China’s so-called Great Firewall to unscramble encrypted web and mobile traffic as it flows in and out of Kazakh borders.

... Unlike with China, which filters data through an expensive and complex digital infrastructure known as the Great Firewall, security experts say Kazakhstan is trying to achieve the same effect at a lower cost. The country is mandating that its citizens install a new “national security certificate” on their computers and smartphones that will intercept requests to and from foreign websites.

That gives officials the opportunity to read encrypted traffic between Kazakh users and foreign servers, in what security experts call a “man in the middle attack.”

As a result, Kazakh telecom operators, and government officials, will be privy to mobile and web traffic between Kazakh users and foreign servers, bypassing encryption protections known as S.S.L., or Secure Sockets Layer, and H.T.T.P.S., technology that encrypts browsing sessions and is familiar to users by the tiny padlock icon that appears in browsers.

Peter Damian (talk) 09:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you explain further what you mean by your question "How's that working out?" The terrible recent developments in Kazakhstan are to be deplored and opposed, as with their human rights record stretching back for many years. There is very good reason to think that a strong and independent Wikipedia (along with an open Internet generally) will be the death knell for such regimes, and this is a fight which will take decades.

In terms of this recent initiative, which effectively mandates a "man in the middle" attack, I will be campaigning with the major Internet providers globally to blacklist the Kazakh certificate and to improve and strengthen MITM protection via certificate pinning.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

By 'how's that working out', I meant 'how is [an open and independent Wikipedia] working out [in terms of being the death knell for tyranny in places like Kazakhstan]'. A knell is a loud sounding or ringing that happens when death is imminent, rather than 'will take decades'. Peter Damian (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It will take decades, particularly in areas that are mostly neglected by liberal democracies.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, you claimed in 2012 that 'Wikibilim is a totally independent organization'. Wasn't there a question about that? Peter Damian (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I am unaware of any questions about that. It remains true.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. I see there's an article HTTP Public Key Pinning, and more information on MITM attacks at Transport Layer Security (some copypasted from Stackexchange, according to a tag there...). I don't really understand it though, or how to apply it here. Key pinning is apparently already being bypassed in the Chromium browser to allow the actions that our corporations (and perhaps the Kazakh officials) call "content inspection" - wouldn't a Kazakh end up being unable to do anything online unless he disabled it such a way? And as for blacklisting certificates - how do you blacklist every certificate the Kazakh government could obtain? Wnt (talk) 12:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, they are distributing a certificate to everyone in Kazakhstan. If that one gets blacklisted, they could get another one, and distribute that one, but... I'll be looking for technical advice as to the most effective thing that we (and other internet providers of various kinds) can do to help.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Password strength requirements for users with advanced permissisons

Hi Jimbo,

As you may be aware, a while back we had an incident wherein a few admin accounts were compromised due to weak passwords and/or using passwords that they used on other websites that were subject to security breaches. This resulted in the Wikipedia:Security review RfC, which came to a conclusion that certain user groups (admins, crats, etc) should be required to have strong passwords. There was also a sort of advisory vote that global policy be changed to make the same or similar requirements be binding on the steward and founder user groups. The new policy on this is still a draft, but you can see it at Wikipedia:Password strength requirements

So, my point is, as you are the sole member of the "Founder" group, and presumabaly always will be, instead of bundling you up with the stewards you could just indicate your voluntary comliance with these new requirements, which you are probably (hopefully) already meeting or exceeding. When the global discussion is had at meta, it would be a simple matter to link to whatever statement you may care to make here on the subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I voluntarily commit to maintaining a secure password for my Wikipedia account.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I saved that statement so that people can link to the diff as desired, but I had one comment on the policy as written at this moment: "Passwords must be at least 8 bits in length" is a pretty odd (wrong) thing to say.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I strongly suspect some Wikipedians are not "computer-literate" about the differences between "computer words", "bits" and "bytes." <g> Collect (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Jimbo. Frankly, I feel the same way, but you knoiw, consensus. I'm hoping the addition of a password strerngth bar will alleviate the need to explicitly explain how to reach "8 bits" in the policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, there's that but under any meaning that I know of for "8 bits" in this context, it isn't nearly enough. 8 bits is a byte. Or, if we are talking about entropy (a complicated topic when thinking about password selection) a typical entropy calculator shows that 'dog' (or other 3 letter passwords) have about 8 bits of entropy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

If I only had a dollar for every meaning of "8 bits"... --Noren (talk) 05:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

You'd have at least four shaves and haircuts. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• A robust standard needs to be set, then, anyone 'with advanced permissisons' who is compromised with a sub-standard password automatically loses said privileges. Seems fair. AnonNep (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jimbo

Hello Jimbo, you know I've admired you a long time. I even donated money to Wikipedia one time, and you sent me an email the other day thanking me for it (and asking for more--but on my salary that's not going to be possible this year). Plus, I wrote you some articles and all that, and I haven't TOTALLY embarrassed our beautiful project. So, having said all that, do you think I can come with you to the Cotton Bowl? I KNOW you're going; I am sure someone gave you an envelope full of tickets. And can Tide rolls, an admin of impeccable behavior, come too? Please take me if only to stick it to Auburn fans like Volunteer Marek. Roll Tide! Drmies (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Have fun without me. Volunteer Marek  01:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

You're a good person, VM. Good luck against Memphis; you're welcome to stay over at my house on your way there or back. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

What's with this recentism business? Who cares about 2015 games? You should emulate Carrite, who has put his never-ending project of writing biographies of late 19th century socialist politicians on temporary hold, in favor of expanding and referencing formerly miserable stubs about football players of the 1930s. That's work for real sports fans. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Cullen, if you had been watching Henry you would have known he transcends time and space. Numbers don't lie. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

"impeccable", Professor? I'll settle for "adequate". RMFT Tiderolls 07:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Jim - Now you've gone and connected my name to those of a couple of fricken SEC fans.. Thanks a lot......... Carrite (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll admit that I'm a bit torn between my visceral hatred of Bama and wanting the SEC smack down all the lesser conferences. But only a bit. Volunteer Marek  16:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia turning 15

Hello Jimmy, greetings from India. At the outset, congratulations on the 15^th birthday of Wikipedia and a fantastic job done by you in creating Wikipedia. Jimmy, I am a huge fan of your work, of Wikipedia and am an active user myself. I started a small discussion here about the 15th anniversary and am taking the liberty of bringing the discussion to your notice. See if that makes sense. Wish you a Merry Christmas, a very Happy new year and all the best for your future endeavors. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)