User talk:Jimbo Wales

Everyone appears to agree that my question has been addressed more than adequately and that further conversation serves no useful purpose Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) You're not listening. I'm done here.  — Scott • talk 10:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC) I did listen but the COI guideline is explicit, it says it is not about bias, nor about feelings, nor about advocacy, nor about personal integrity, it is about all editing where there is the defined relationship with the subject. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:20, 17 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) Welcome to my world. Ding! Ding! Shame! Shame! Jehochman Talk 09:53, 17 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) I'm sure glad you're bored and indifferent about WPO, Core — it shows. Actually, that's sarcasm, what we all see is an obsessive warrior on the topic. Hatred is your COI. You are absolutely incapable of observing NPOV on this topic. Carrite (talk) 07:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC) Evidently that personal attack bears repeating a multiple of times, from multiple tag-teaming editors. I am coming to see that given Jimbo's failure to offer an opinion as I requested, all this discussion has done is to serve as a forum for personal hostility and disdain for the COI guideline on the part of Wikipediocracy advocates, some of whom are administrators. Agree with User:AnonNep's comment above about well-connected editors being able to act as they please and without fear of consequences. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC) @Carrite: Uh no, just don't much care for the COI editor tactics in that article, here, everywhere. Said that a bunch of times, and you guys just keep lying. Keep on keeping on. I have to admit that given the WP:OWN situation in that article, its control by COI editors, the line between the article and the subject has been blurred to such an extent that yes, perhaps "hating" the way that article is WP:OWNed and the tactics utilized to keep that control can be construed by the COI editors/fanboys as hating the subject. Coretheapple (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC) It's not so much as a "disdain for the COI guideline", which I adhere to tho' it is a guideline and not binding policy. More, it's a disdain for you two and your relentless pursuit of the 'unclean', from forum to forum. Looks like this one's exhausted - time to move to another. Maybe WP:ANI? - Alison ❤ 06:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC) FYI, this is compliance with the COI guideline (I will not make direct edits to this article because of my conflict of interest) this is not. A BP employee has more respect for the COI guideline than an administrator. Funny, that. Coretheapple (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC) No, to have a COI is not to be unclean, it simply means one is subject to a guideline. If you were adhering to the COI guideline, which strongly discourages COI editors from directly participating in articles and requir es specific kinds of disclosure, I would not have come here out of exasperation with your resistance to doing so. In particular wp:coi requires self-disclosure by a connected contributor template. You and your friends fought that, sought to remove it entirely or, in the alternative, to add Core. Then you and your friends treated the template like a joke by adding names to the template with "I am Spartacus" edit summaries. Yes I agree that this shows contempt for the guideline. You resorted to snark and personal attacks throughout, and refused to discuss this in civil fashion on your talk page. Instead I just got more snark from your friends. You say you comply but you have no user page COI disclosure as suggested by the guideline. The sense I get is that you and other longstanding editors involved in this article feel you can pretty much act as you wish, especially in the use of personal attacks, without consequences and that the system has your back. That may be unfair but it is my sense of the situation and I believe it is accurate. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC) The COI guideline "which I adhere to." Yup. [5][6][7][8] You can clearly get away with ignoring the guideline, so what is the point of ANI? Coretheapple (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC) Awww, come on, bring it. Let's determine who the community deems are COI-blinded disruptionists and who are adhering to NPOV. Maybe we can get a couple topic bans out of the deal... Carrite (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC) If you want a warranty deed for your WP:OWNership of your article the place for that is the county clerk's office, not whatever "community" you guys can bring over from that site. Coretheapple (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC) You know where AN/I is... Give it a shot.... Carrite (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Yes, I know that there is a high degree of confidence that the "community" (i.e., friends of the site and the administrator who co-founded it) will turn up in force to give you a warranty deed to the article. Thank you for repeating yourself. I didn't understand you the first twelve times. Coretheapple (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC) I'm sure it's a total coincidence that most of the people who showed up here to complain about the injustice of being listed in a talkpage template that no one reads anyway are active and frequent Wikipediocracy posters. I presume if Mark Zuckerberg started editing Facebook the same people would argue that this shouldn't be noted on the talkpage because he's just a co-founder and you're assuming bad faith by saying he might have a COI and why are you trying to smear Facebook. Anyway someone just file the ArbCom case already. They're down to only three open cases! Gotta make sure the incoming arbs have enough work! Just be aware that participating has a good chance of getting you a nice page on Encyclopedia Dramatica if you don't already have one, with all the personal information people can ferret out about you. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 06:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC) I agree that the hubris displayed by the Wikipediocracy contingent is quite remarkable. They are so well-connected that they are cynically confident they have mastered the website they criticize as "broken." Ironically their control of their article is Exhibit A for that proposition. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC) An alternative thesis for you to consider, not that you are interested in exploring alternative theses, is that many of the people who post at the message board called Wikipediocracy are critically-minded Wikipedians, and that the "broken" POV behavior here is the ongoing IDONTLIKEIT warriorism of the site's opponents. Carrite (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Yes, "we're right" is always an alternative thesis, especially in situations like this in which administrators control an article. (And yes, I know, there is always ANI, you got that covered, blah blah blah). By the way, how many admins have been involved in this discussion on the "there ain't no such thing as COI" side. Four? Five? Counting the admin/checkuser? All "critically minded" Wikipedians I know but aren't you guys taking cynicism just a bit too far? Coretheapple (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Something—a very significant something—that Coretheapple and Figureofnine are too polite or perhaps afraid to mention is the fact that there is a Wikipediocracy cabal that meets once a month at undisclosed locations (never the same one twice) to discuss, strategize, and strengthen WO's WP:OWNership of the WP article and their control over ANI. Presiding over these meetings are Her Satanic Majesty herself (I dare not speak Her name but you know who I mean—all of Wikipediocracy is in thrall to Her) and The Evil One (ditto), banished from this Eden, who can only be referred to by the initials GK and no I don’t mean the God-King. The entire active contingent of the WP administrator corps is forced to participate (blackmail, natch; also threats of red-hot pokers up the ass etc., and—for those who brush that off as mere inconvenience—being locked in a room with a GOP presidential candidate for half an hour). It's to these hapless slaves that falls the task of supervising and enforcing OWNership of the Wikipediocracy article and control over ANI—as Coretheapple, who is no fool, has already guessed. I hardly need add: little heads are ripped from mewling kittens at these terrible meetings and much feline blood is quaffed. The cabal wanted virgins to sacrifice but the human ones are in short supply these days. But it's not all bad. The virgin kitties are rescued from the SPCA. Writegeist (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC) No, I'd put it more like this: COI + OWN + Admins= the Wikipediocracy article. I think that if you guys were candid you'd have to admit that this pretty much sums up the dynamic. Coretheapple (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC) Clearly this discussion indicates that the answer to my original question is "no." No editor is required to obey the COI guideline. Hence the schoolyard dare to "go to ANI" which they know will not enforce a guideline. The only difference as concerns admins/checkusers is that administrators and well-connected users can be blatant about defying the guideline and suffer no repercussions whatsoever. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Actually, that's not the question you asked 11 days and 12,000 words ago. But mission accomplished, I suppose, I congratulate you... Carrite (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Here's a different perspective. What this has actually shown is that when an editor voluntarily and openly declares a link to a subject, they will be ganged-up on, ostensibly bullied, and hounded from forum to forum across the wiki. This passive-aggressive, hectoring, almost-bullying tactic is used to silence those whom they disagree with. I see it in action here, and so does everyone else. Now again - why on earth would anyone want to disclose anything, in the face of this bullying by a pair of pseuds such as yourselves, when all that will happen is that it will be used as a stick to beat them? - Alison ❤ 22:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC) ^^^^^^^^is why this discussion has consumed 10K words. Because the COI editor and her buddies view compliance with the guideline as torture to be fought tooth and nail, and noticeboard posts resulting from her defiance as "hounding." And by the way, what was the outcome of this "hounding"? You still defy the COI guideline by directly editing the article, as you have in the past. When your name was put in the connected contributor template you removed the template. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Yeah you disclosed what you yourself said everybody already knew, which is that you were co-founder of the site. There then was drama which you caused by refusing to comply with the COI guideline. What in heaven's name is so hard to grasp about that plain fact? Coretheapple (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Blaming the victim again, I see. Yes, you and your buddy posted on four - possibly more as I wasn't being informed - separate fora, hounding and hectoring and basically being a butt. And I've broken no rules at all. Yep. And I'm not going to stop editing the article any time soon either, within those rules. Because if I do, I'm being cowed by bullies, and that ain't how I roll. Later, skater ;) - Alison ❤ 02:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC) I'm not going to stop editing the article on the site you co-founded. Yes, that's what I just said, which is that you are declining to abide by WP:COI. That's how you "roll." Playing the victim is also how you roll. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 02:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC) And WP:BATTLEGROUND is how you roll, apparently. Jimbo isn't going to intervene here (and if he did I suspect you wouldn't like it), and you've already realized that AN/I, Arbcom, or whatever other forum you might shop at won't help you either. You don't seem to even hold that the article on Wikipediocracy isn't NPOV. What's the point of all this, aside from fighting the good fight against the "other side"? --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 03:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Yes, this discussion has made it abundantly clear that the COI guideline is unenforceable, that it has no teeth. That's the reason for the invoking of ANI and arbcom by you and Alison as you both know there is no "rule" to enforce. And yes, you've made it abundantly clear your position is that raising this issue is a heinous crime against the law of Wikipedia and nature. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 03:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC) As for the outcome of this discussion, I've already indicated the obvious, which is that Alison defies the guideline and that if anyone doesn’t like it they lump it. You and Alison concur. So yes there is no point in further discussion unless you or Alison want to say "black is white" for the umpteenth time Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 03:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC) @:SB_Johnny What "forum shopping"? Smallbones went to the COI noticeboard because you, other editors and Alison edit-warred over inserting my name in the COI editors template before an uninvolved administrator told you guys to knock it off, that it was uncivil conduct. I'm reasonably certain that raising the issue here is the only place FON has come. As for Jimbo/arbcom, I'm not quite sure that he/they are willing to endorse admins editing articles in which they have a clear conflict, but I'm not quite as good a mind-reader as you are. Coretheapple (talk) 12:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Since the very act of discussing her COI purportedly inflicts distress on Alison ("hounding") then let's hat this conversation and I am doing so. But if Alison or her supporters prolong this further they have no reason to complain that there is further fruitless discussion. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:19, 21 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)

‘ “Kazaksha Wikipedia” project is implemented under the auspices of the Government of Kazakhstan and with the support of Prime Minister Karim Massimov, head of “Wikibilim” public fund Rauan Kenzhekhanuly said in an interview for PM.kz site.’ [9] — Official web site of Kazakhstan prime minister Karim Massimo. Further reading: [10], [11], the December 23 2012 online Examiner article Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales denies Kazakhstan connection, and this Wales talk page thread, in which Wales participated, entitled Kazakhstan government support for Kazakh Wikipedia. Factoid: Currently 50% of Wikibilim’s trustees are paid government employees. Writegeist (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

It is completely false that Kazakh language Wikipedia is a project of the Government of Kazakhstan. Wikibilim is a completely independent organization with no control over the Kazakh Wikipedia. It is not a local chapter, and there are no plans for it ever to become a local chapter. As of the last time I checked, Wikibilim employees do not edit Wikipedia. It is easy to piece together misleading quotes to try to imply things that aren't true - but it's easier to just tell the truth.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

By flatly contradicting the Kazakhstan prime minister’s official statement, you are saying that either he doesn’t know what his own government is doing or he’s lying on his office’s website (perhaps calculating that outside Kazakhstan the only likely challenge to the lie would be an unsubstantiated one from someone whose veracity on this page in relation to Kadazhstan had already been thrown into question by that same someone's own words, i.e. (1) “Past connection to the Kazakh dictatorship" - total and utter and complete bullshit. I have no past connection of any kind to the Kazakh dictatorship. — Jimbo Wales, Jimbotalk, 14 December 2014. (2) “I’ve been getting in touch with the government there. I've been talking to the Prime Minister there [ …] I'm going in December and I'm gonna give the award in the presence of the Prime Minister …" — Jimbo Wales, 2011 closing ceremony speech at Wikimania 2011)

Also of interest here: Before he became president of Wikibilim, Rauan Kenzhekhanuly (first recipient of the aforementioned Wikipedian of the Year award) was first secretary at Kazakhstan’s embassy in Moscow and head of Kazakhstan’s government-controlled propagandist TV operation, which was launched by the daughter of Nursultan Nazarbayev. Oh. Who he? President of Kazakhstan.

Wiikibilim is funded by Samruk-Kazyna, Kazakhstan’s sovereign wealth fund. The state is its sole shareholder. Chairman of S-K’s board when Wikibilim was set up: Timur Asqaruly Kulibayev. Who he? Husband of Dinara Nursultanovna. And who she? President Nazarbayev’s daughter. Writegeist (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, if he says that, then he's lying. This surprises you?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Somewhat more than if you are, as I’m more familiar with your track record than with Massimov’s.

You say that Massimo is lying; that there’s no state control exercised in this instance by a government that’s notorious for control and censorship of information and the media, and for suppression of free speech; and that Wikibillim is independent of the government that funds it, fills half the seats on its board of trustees with government employees, and selects 100 of its users to receive free laptops in return for transcribing and writing government-approved articles, none of which address Kazakhstan’s record on human rights or suppression of independent media. Am I surprised you say that? Not in the least.

By the way, FYI, as apparently you are unaware, your unsupported assertion that Massimov is a liar violates the BLP policy, which applies to this page just as it does anywhere on Wikipedia. (For more information on Wikipedia’s BLP policy, refer to WP:BLP.) Writegeist (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Astonishing. Mr. Wales has just said that everyone in Kazakhstan who runs the Wikipedia project there, and says it is backed and funded by the state, is lying. Instead the truth is as Wales presents it - that Kazakh Wikipedia is independent of the Kazakh government. Don't believe your own lying eyes kids. Again, Republican primary debate levels of astonishing.Dan Murphy (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, come on. If you put words in my mouth, you can make it seem like just about anything. There are very serious concerns and problems with the Wikibilim organization, but it remains the case that the Kazakh language Wikipedia is not a project of the government. If Massimov says that it is, he's lying. If he's concerned about that as a BLP violation, then he's free to complain. I have not said that Wikibilim is independent of the government that funds it - it is not. What I have said is that Wikibilim is completely independent of the Wikimedia Foundation and of me. I have no connection with the Kazakh government, despite the ongoing pretense by people who know better. I oppose them firmly. I have had contact with them in the past, and I would imagine that I will again - to lobby for change. I will not apologize for that, nor will I allow dishonest people to portray opposition as support.

There is a much more interesting conversation to be had. Rather than dishonestly trying to pin something on me, a rather ridiculous thing to do, it would be better to show some genuine concern for the people of Kazakhstan, and suggest genuine ways that we can help in the current situation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Wikibilim runs the Kazakh Wikipedia. Wikibilim is entirely funded and run by the Kazkh government and senior Kazakh government bureaucrats. The vast majority of the Kazakh Wikipedia is articles imported from the government's official propaganda encyclopedia. The Kazakh government's academy of arts and sciences runs "fact checking and quality control" on the Kazakh Wikipedia. The Kazakh Wikipedian of the year you named was prior to that award, and since, a rising star in the repressive firmament of the Kazakh regime. And your response to people who say this shows the Kazakh government runs the Kazakh Wikipedia is to call them "liars." It's astonishing you get away with such counterfactual claims. At any rate, this is like talking about the nuclear triad with Donald Trump. I'm out.Dan Murphy (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

What he said. Anyone of reasonable intelligence who has been paying attention to this thread can see where the porkies are.

@Jimbo Wales. Question: did you ever actually pay the Kazakh state apparatchik the much trumpeted $5,000 that supposedly went with his Wikipedia of the Year award? A straightforward, factually correct reply please. A simple yes or no will do. Thank you. Then I’m done with you here.

Oh, one other thing. You wrote above, on 15 December, “Wikibilim is a completely independent organization with no control over the Kazakh Wikipedia. It is not a local chapter, and there are no plans for it ever to become a local chapter.” (Emphasis added.) Wikibilim’s own CC submission states: “Recognition of «Wikibilim» as a Wikipedia’ local chapter in Kazakhstan is in progress.” [12] Obviously there were plans for Wikibilim to become a local chapter. What happened to its application? Why were the plans permanently scrapped? Writegeist (talk) 16:55, 18 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)

It looks like this is in flux. [13] I don't know nearly enough about TLS to understand whether a third party site can figure out which top level certificate authority issued a certificate, or how much data it knows about you from that, though I would suspect the worst. But if Kazakhstan actually does execute a MITM attack against a connection, can't they request whatever certificate they want from whomever they want to apply at the point past the "Firewall", as if they were the computer owner, thereby concealing their role? Wnt (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The way certificates work is that the creator generates a pair of keys—private and public. Everyone can get the public key and can use it to check messages signed with the private key. Your computer and/or browser has a list of trusted certificate authorites, and a method to check the trust has not been revoked. The browser will establish an encrypted connection with a web server, but the browser will fill the screen with warnings if the server is not using a certificate from a trusted authority. Presumably the Kazakhstan plan is that each citizen would install a Kazakhstan authority as trusted. Then the government could MITM encrypted sessions—citizen computer to government proxy would be encrypted using the Kazakhstan certificate, and proxy to target web server (say Wikipedia) would be encrypted using the Wikipedia certificate. That is how a company web proxy works when a company workstation establishes an encrypted connection with an external web server such as Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Independence of Kazakh language Wikipedia

You wrote "It is completely false that Kazakh language Wikipedia is a project of the Government of Kazakhstan." (06:02, 16 December 2015).

Let's take a look.The English Wikipedia has an article, Zhanaozen massacre, describing a labour protest where 14 civilians were killed by police. The state described the killed as "hooligans". On the Kazakh Wikipedia, the same article is entitled Жаңаөзен оқиғасы, which translates roughly as "Zhanaozen Story". In English it's a massacre, in Kazakh it's just a story. The lead of the English-language article notes: "The massacre was a stark illustration of the country's poor human rights record under President Nursultan Nazarbayev." The Kazakh article mentions Nazarbayev by name only once: "On December 22, a special visit was made by President Nursultan Nazarbayev who arrived in the Mangistau region."

The largest section of the English article details the testimony disclosed during the investigations after the shootings. It generally focuses on the point of view of the protesters and of outside watchdog groups. The largest section of the Kazakh article details the testimony of the General Prosecutor's Office, which describes the protesters as having engaged in "misconduct", and that "the suppression of the riots" was necessary "for the protection of civilians". The hooligans were participating in "mass disorder". And that's why 64 people were shot.

Peter Damian (talk) 12:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

How Kazakh language Wikipedia aids censorship

And as I have pointed out to you before, the development of the Kazakh encyclopedia is part of the process of 'Kazakhisation', i.e. to move both the culture and the language of Kazakhstan away from Russian (a quarter of the population are ethnically Russian) to Kazakh. The department of education has excluded many Russian classics from its instructional program, and there has been a deliberate imposition of Kazakh culture, including Nazarbayev’s brainchild, the six volume national encyclopedia, which began publication in 1999, and which has now been incorporated into the Kazakh Wikipedia. As Bhavna Dave put it, the primary value of the Kazakh language is as an instrument of nationalisation.

The practical effect of the language program is discrimination and censorship. Discrimination, because the Kazakh constitution holds that all public jobs require knowledge of the Kazakh language, which amounts to excluding Russians from the public sector. Beginning in the late 1990s, candidates for the presidency were required to pass a test for proficiency in Kazakh language and culture.

Censorship, because no one understands the Kazakh language outside Kazakhstan. As long as Russian remains the language of inter-ethnic communication in the Kazakhstan, it is a means of opening its speakers to ideas circulating outside the country on TV and on the Internet. While the internet can supposedly route its signal around any obstacle, it can’t help people understand that signal. Once Nazarbayev’s program to focus the teaching of Kazakh on the next generation is realised, no one in the country will understand external media. There is no need to censor something that no one can understand. “Looking at the situation in the long-term perspective, if Kazakh language policy is successfully implemented in the same direction at a similar pace, in few generations we are going to have more and more people who have access to only part of the story unless they learn other languages”, says my friend Yevgeniya Plakhina, a freelance journalist who contributes to the banned opposition newspaper Respublika. “Access to other sources might be also blocked because Kazakhstan has very restrictive mass media and internet legislation. It is clever to say that if you show part of the story it does not mean it is lies”.

Peter Damian (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

One of the most useful exercises of freedom of expression I've seen, the interlibrary loan service Sci-Hub, actually started in Kazakhstan.^[14] So that country is not always behind the U.S. - and sometimes, they're out ahead. Wnt (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Peter Damian, while I share most of your concerns here, I disagree with your take on the Kazakh language issue. They are indeed downplaying Russian, but that's no different from the vast majority of post-Soviet states who want to distance themselves from their former colonial masters and stress their own national identity. In contrast, they are pushing hard for better English levels, for example Nazarbayev University requires at least band 6 in IELTS. Part of this is for geopolitical reasons (Nazo is nervous about Russia eventually seeking to annex parts of north Kazakhstan with Russian majorities) and part for pragmatic business reasons: 2 devaluations in 22 months have shown them that their economy is over-dependent on natural resource prices and Russia and they're seeking to diversify away from that. Valenciano (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks that's very helpful - I didn't know about the English thing. Though this does not detract from my main point: that projects such as individual language Wikipedias can often conflict with the broader aims of the Wikimedia movement - particularly opposition to censorship. Peter Damian (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikibilim: the unanswered questions

Jimbo Wales, apparently you missed these questions, which were buried in a preceding thread, so I’m giving them more prominence here. And pinging you.

Q1: Did you ever actually pay the Kazakh state apparatchik the $5,000 that supposedly went with his Wikipedia of the Year award?

Q2: You wrote above, on 15 December, “Wikibilim is a completely independent organization with no control over the Kazakh Wikipedia. It is not a local chapter, and there are no plans for it ever to become a local chapter.” (Emphasis added.) Wikibilim’s own CC submission states: “Recognition of «Wikibilim» as a Wikipedia local chapter in Kazakhstan is in progress.” [15] Obviously there were plans for Wikibilim to become a local chapter. What happened to its application? Why were the plans permanently scrapped?

Writegeist (talk) 08:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Q1: No.

Q2: You would have to ask them and people directly involved in the chapter submission process. If I had to guess, when it became clear that such an application would be very unlikely to be approved, they dropped further action on it. But I'm not directly involved. If the matter came to the board, I would strongly encourage the board to not approve the application without some major changes and some thorough due diligence.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Q1: Thank you for clearing that up.

Q2: I note your emphasis on "due diligence". It’s interesting that Nartay Ashim, Wikibilim’s “National Coordinator”, is listed among the attendees at the 2012 Wikimedia Conference Chapters meeting (so apparently the WMF were already treating Wikibilim as a chapter); and that the WMF gave Wikibilim $16,000 for the 2012 Turkic Wikimedia Conference in Kazakhstan. Was that because the WMF board had failed in its due diligence? I.e. had the WMF failed to grasp that the Kazakh Wikipedia is a project of the Kazakh government?

When you’d accepted the official invitation to Kazakhstan from Yerlan Idrissov (their ambassador to the US), Khazak TV announced you’d thanked the Kazakh government for “creating conditions for significant achievements in the development of the Kazakh language Wikipedia”, and that you’d announced your intention to visit (as you did on Wikipedia). You didn’t go; and neither, as you now confirm, did you ever pay the promised $5,000 to the Kazakh state apparatchik who won your Wikipedian of the Year award. Was that because it wasn’t until after you'd thanked the Kazakh government that you did your due diligence? Writegeist (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

More contradictions

1. You say you will not "allow dishonest people to portray opposition as support". Yet you say at the Wikimania 2012 conference (time code 23:45 onwards) that you are going to give the award [to Rauan] 'in the presence of the President and Prime Minister'. So that's opposition, and it would be really "dishonest" to portray your giving an award in the presence of the Kazakh President and Prime Minister as support? I don't follow this.
2. "I have not said that Wikibilim is independent of the government that funds it - it is not." But you say in your interview with Yevgeniya – now ironically deleted from the internet, probably by the Kazakh authorities – that "Wikibilim is absolutely independent. They do not [control] and do not [manage] the Kazakh-Wikipedia", and you say that while there was a government grant, it was issued without any obligations [regarding] the Wikipedia content (which Wikibilim in any [event] does not control). You also concede in that interview that the funds were used to import the Kazakh encyclopedia, but as I have pointed out above, that encyclopedia is an instrument of nationalisation, whose effects are both discrimination and censorship.

Peter Damian (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Dependency matrix

Of course you know very well that it sounds cool if you say they are "completely independent" while omitting to make clear that you mean completely independent of the Wikimedia Foundation. To help out, here is a matrix connecting the four different entities.

	KZ state	Wikibilim	KZ Wikipedia	WMF
KZ state		Entirely dependent	Via Wikibilim, state encyclopedia etc.	Via KZ Wikipedia
Wikibilim			Grants to develop content. "The Kazakh Wikipedia was the first project of the WikiBilim Public Fund, which kicked off in June 2011"[16]	KZ Wikipedia, conference grant, trademark etc
KZ Wikipedia				WMF owns servers, trade mark etc.

Some may find this interesting

WSJ blog about China.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

It is still Nineteen Eighty-Four in the People's Republic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Ironic, maybe even deliberate. But I don't think it's that unusual for crude machine translations to be exactly backwards. And that phrase you used is tough: "...will become completely antiquated." Compare the translation if you'd said "...will become completely traditional." With Xi Jinping's attitude toward free expression, there are more than enough things to criticize unambiguously. Wnt (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

"We will see, not perfect, but very much improved machine translation, which will very much enhance person-to-person communication worldwide. This will be a very powerful thing. I believe as a result of this, the idea that any one government can control the flow of information of what people know in their territory will become completely antiquated and no longer possible". You tell em'! The idea of censoring widespread information in this day and age is unbelievable. Think how big Chinese wikipedia could be by now if they stopped messing about... It must be awful to live in a place where the government keep blocking and unblocking wikipedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I hate to say this (it causes stress and makes me cringe) but in the spirit of Free Speech would like to express what I really believe. Holocaust denial is censored/illegal in 14-European countries and any attempt to directly quote the "deniers" (regarding the practicality of using louse disinfestant and diesel exhaust for gassing and the logistics of cremating thousands/day) is censored on Wikipedia because they are not "reliable sources". People have been jailed in Germany -- extradited from the U.S. -- for discussing it. (See Ernst Zündel, Germar Rudolf.) I also think the Hillary Clinton email controversy article is censored, POV. Even giving estimates of the number killed by the United States' illegal bombing in Cambodia is censored. These are just a few of the articles on Wikipedia I think are censored. Raquel Baranow (talk) 01:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I encourage you to revisit these questions with a crucial distinction in mind that you appear to be missing. "Editorial judgment" and "censorship" are not the in the same category. One involves the threat of force (arrest, jail, etc.) and the other does not. On each of the elements within Wikipedia that you mention, there is no "censorship" but there is "editorial judgment". Now, you might argue that our editorial judgment is wrong - but no one is going to jail if they argue it. I should hasten to add that I do not agree with jailing Holocaust deniers, but that isn't really relevant to the point that I'm making. No one is being threatened with jail for the kind of Wikipedia editing you are discussing. In particular, editing about the Hilary Clinton email controversy is not even remotely close to something that anyone, anywhere, is in danger of being arrested for. You weaken whatever valid point you may have (if any) by saying things that are just transparently not true.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

“The thousand foreign guests who have agreed to attend the conference should be ashamed of themselves,” GreatFire co-founder Charlie Smith told RSF. “Lu Wei has at least been consistent with his messaging and his conditions for doing business in China. If foreign guests think that by attending the conference they can help to free China’s Internet then they are deluded. I would even go so far as to say that they are complicit actors in the Chinese censorship regime and are lending legitimacy to Lu Wei, CAC and their heavy-handed approach to Internet governance. They are, in effect, helping to put all Chinese who stand for their constitutional right to free speech behind bars.” Full article at Reporters Without Borders (RSF)here. Related GreatFire article, focused on LinkedIn in China, here. Writegeist (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Suffice to say, I disagree vehemently with Charlie Smith. As is common for him, his loud-mouthed rhetoric serves the interests of Chinese censorship perfectly. By attacking the only people who care enough to do something, he makes it much harder for progress to be made. If I listened to him - and I don't - I could just stay home and not go to China to lobby for change.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

China is emerging as the world's powerhouse though. I always get the impression with them that they're super stubborn when it comes to decision making and unlikely to be swayed by that sort of lobbying. I support you and the others for standing up for what is right and making the effort though, but in this case they've clearly interpreted it as aggression and have responded by blocking it again. Perhaps in the long term gaining support from within China, even from certain government ministers individually, will win eventually, but it's clearly going to be very difficult to get them put mass censorship behind them and move on.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I would just like to say, having studied Chinese for ten years and previously worked as a professional Chinese translator, I find it highly unlikely that this was the result of a machine translation error or anything else innocent. The Chinese is too smooth and native-like overall to be a machine translation, and there are definitely ways of coming close to your meaning in Chinese, despite the somewhat complex phrasing you used. As it stands, the meaning of the first part of your comment is translated quite well in the transcript, while the second part in the transcript is basically a completely different meaning from what you actually said, which doesn't make any sense. Also, while I won't echo Charlie Smith's overheated rhetoric, I do think that the Chinese government commonly exploits foreigners to create the appearance of Western support for its policies, and I fear that your presence at the conference has been used in exactly this way. The most your engagement will accomplish is to get Wikipedia unblocked in China, while simultaneously providing cover for the Chinese government to continue its overall "management" of the internet (to borrow Lu Wei's euphemism). Not a good tradeoff in my mind.--Danaman5 (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of “people who care enough to do something” about Chinese censorship: China-based dissident "Charlie Smith" (whose informed views Wales gratuitously insults as “loud-mouthed rhetoric”), and the two other dissidents who co-founded Greatfire with him, have a proven record of effective activism that includes mirroring “blocked websites on cloud services that the Chinese authorities deem too valuable to block”. And the Wikipedia co-founder? He flies to China to “lobby for change”—i.e. attends a Chinese propaganda junket that Amnesty International and Reporters without Borders urged him to boycott; whereupon the Chinese government use him as a stooge, effortlessly and really rather predictably spinning his words to support their agenda. In this the misgivings of Charlie Smith, Greatfire, Amnesty, RSF et al. were well-founded. Will Wales’s token gesture accomplish the unblocking of Wikipedia? When he spoke to Lu Wei he didn’t even mention it. Writegeist (talk) 08:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

"When he spoke to Lu Wei he didn't even mention it" - this is false. It was the only topic of our conversation. "...that Amnesty Iternational and Reporters without Borders urged him to boycott" - this is false, neither of them contacted me about it at all. I went at the request of the Wikimedia Foundation and upon the advice of the experts we consulted. I went with the objective of opening a conversation, and I was successful in doing that. Further meetings will take place. I was asked by the press if this meant that we would agree to modify content to meet the political demands of the Chinese government and I said "never". Will this dialogue ultimately be successful? It is hard to know at this point. My own estimate of the odds is that it is a long shot - but one worth pursuing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

“Mr. Wales told China Real Time his site’s status in China didn’t come up during a brief meeting he held early Thursday with Cyberspace Administration of China chief Lu Wei…” — Pulitzer Prize-winning Wall Street Journal China correspondent James T Areddy

“Amnesty International has called upon technology companies to boycott the conference, saying that – if China is successful in influencing other countries on how to govern the internet – the crackdown on free speech and violations of human rights will become more rampant.” Vivienne Zeng, 12/18, Hong Kong Free Press

“Others, including press freedom advocacy group Reporters Without Borders and China censorship watchdog GreatFire.org, called for a boycott of China's World Internet Conference.” Reuters, 12/15

Btw, perhaps by now you have had enough time to formulate replies to the two questions above at Wikibilim: the unanswered questions?

Writegeist (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Mr Areddy is mistaken. I didn't actually speak to him, but to a colleague and clearly my remarks were not understood and were perhaps conveyed to him in a way that compounded the confusion. I was asked several very very specific questions about the meeting, and several things (such as when Wikipedia might be unblocked, in terms of a date) didn't come up. But the meeting was entirely about the status of Wikipedia in China.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I read this this morning. Author seems to make a good point in comment area: "My concern isn’t that no debate occurs, it’s that the government can use these events to make it look like debate is occurring, to make it look like these figures endorse China’s internet system, and to generally give the impression that China’s internet is just like everyone else’s." Mr Wales, I would be interested to know, were any of the prominent attendees who spoke to the assembly paid for their time or their costs to visit? Were you offered any compensation, and if so, was it by the conference itself, and did you accept the payment. I think if you traveled to China voluntarily to speak out your opinion about censorship in China, that is a good thing. If they paid you to talk, and then modified your transcript, it undermines the integrity of your ideas. Whole milch (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I obviously can't speak for any of the other prominent attendees. But I was not offered any compensation, and I did not receive any compensation. I traveled to China voluntarily to speak against censorship in China, and I did so, both to the press and to the minister himself.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The choice of whether to engage or to protest is a tactical one, on which people always disagree, and there is little to be gained by trying to second-guess it. What matters is whether the engagement or protest is effective. I see little reason why we should expect Wales, having chosen to engage, to start making immediate accusations about deliberate mistranslation. It should be sufficient for him to point out the error and expect it to be fixed. If there were trouble getting that to happen, he could criticize it on technical grounds.

As engagement goes, I would have liked to have seen a direct response to the "Draft Wuzhen Declaration" from 2014, which is presented seriously by The Register and ridiculed by TechCrunch. This document encompasses many errors in thinking that are, indeed, not unique to China. It would be better to respond: (2) Respecting internet sovereignty means respecting their freedoms rather than collaborating in their censorship; (3) We need to recognize that, going all the way back to the 1980s, merely accessing a computer improperly should never have been a crime, that banning hacking created a sense of false security and international criminal opportunity, and people like User:Aaronsw show how badly this can go wrong; (4) "Cyber terrorism" is committed not by those who disseminate ideas, or even those who, without specific intent to cause harm, make attempts to hack into critical systems, but by those who act on those ideas, or who place critical systems under internet control that historically were entrusted only to human superintendants; (5) we should slow the arms race in surveillance technology, and question why we fund so much more research into surveilling Tweets than surveilling the infectious diseases that may one day end our civilization; (6) we should recognize that the best part of the internet is noncommercial, and try to reduce the role in civil discourse of businesses and the regulations that deny others the right to compete with them; (7) we should cherish and share global dissent and criticism and strive for a heightened respect of individuality; (8) we should teach children to protect themselves, not worrying about their exposure to 'illicit' material in itself but only their ability to deal with it; (9) work for a cyberspace that is governed by none.

But none of this works so long as the Western countries alternate their denunciations of Chinese practices with attempts to implement them on their own soil. People need to actually be proud of freedom of expression, stand up for it, and increase it, rather than continually throwing away rights for little if any reason, such as to avoid acts of terror that are less likely than being hit by lightning, or out of some sense of consistency with traditional bans that were never actually necessary. Until we feel confident in our own countries, how can we hope to preach at China? Wnt (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Appeal of ArbCom decision at GMO

Dear Jimbo, I believe I am allowed to appeal an ArbCom decision on your Talk page. I have actually e-mailed ArbCom today regarding this matter (please see below), however, I note that appeals here must be made within 7 days of the Arbcom decision. I am posting this to adhere to that 7-day time-limit, but I am happy for you not to consider this request until ArbCom make their decision on amending my topic ban.

Email to ArbCom

I would like to request an amendment to my recently imposed topic ban.[17] I am requesting the amendment deletes the inclusion of "genetically modified plants and". I am requesting this amendment because there is a total absence of evidence that I have been disruptive in this topic area. I respectfully quote the WP:banning policy as "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia." (my highlighting). Below, I provide evidence that I have not been disruptive in this topic area, in fact, I have not made a single content edit about GM-plants in my history of editing WP.

I have reviewed all the submissions relating to myself presented during the evidence phase of the GMO case. There was not a single diff provided by any party which related to me editing or discussing GM-plants.

I have also reviewed all my edits for the year of 2015. This review showed that I have not made a single edit of article content relating to GM-plants. In the last 12 months, I have edited only two articles about GMOs which contain sections on GM-plants, i.e. Genetically modified food and Genetically modified organism.

I made a handful of edits (6) on the Genetically modified food article ([18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]) but these were all unrelated to GM-plants.

I made 13 edits to Genetically modified organism. The vast majority of these related to animals and were often simple editorial changes such as typos, links, redundant words. I made one edit potentially tangentially related to GM-plants - I reformatted a reference title to be lowercase rather than uppercase.[24] I reverted only a single edit here[25] and although my revert was itself reverted, I did not engage in any behaviour that might be considered disruptive.

Prior to the GMO case, I was heavily involved in editing Glyphosate and I accept the ArbCom's decision to topic ban me from the area of agricultural chemicals as a remedy. However, I think there has been an inadvertent "topic-creep" which has led to the unnecessary inclusion of GM-plants in my ban. I have not been disruptive in the slightest in the topic area of GM-plants. My overall concern here is that some editors believe that because my topic ban includes plants, general GMO articles such as Genetically modified organism are included in my ban. I would be very grateful for a clarification by ArbCom that if this amendment is approved, my topic ban does not include these general GMO articles. I respectfully await your decision on my request for an amendment.

Thank you for considering this. DrChrissy ^(talk) 03:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Uh, DrChrissy, Jimbo doesn't overturn ArbCom or community decisions. There's no point in appealing to him. Capeo (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, theoretically, he can do it. However, your chances are very small. It is - in my opinion - only for obvious Arbcom rights abuses - a ban without any evidence at all, for example.--Müdigkeit (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

As per above. The final 'Appeal to Jimbo' is always available - however a quick look through the cases where the user has appealed here will show that it rarely (in fact I can only think of one instance) results in any change due to the indepth community involvement before it gets to that point (which Jimbo is unlikely to overturn without very good reason). But I am sure he will be along presently to give his opinion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

It is - but should it be? This is the right time to ask.  — Scott • talk 13:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, the first question to ask is "what part of Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo are you having trouble understanding?" --Guy Macon (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

That's only an essay. I need to write an essay called "Why linking to essays to prove a point is silly." Carrite (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Excellent point, Carrite. Thanks. Jusdafax 17:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

So when multiple people ask Jimbo a question, linking to an essay where Jimbo himself answered that specific question in detail is somehow not good enough. Or, more likely, the issue is not that Jimbo's answer appeared in an essay, but rather that any answer from Jimbo other than the desired answer will be unacceptable to some here. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• I hope that Jimbo at least will say if he is going to address this appeal. Coretheapple (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The case includes numerous irregularities, and to me Jimmy Wales is the Court of Last Appeal. The fact that he rarely takes note of such appeal would only make his comment and possible intervention more potent. Jimmy, at least please review this case and give your views. Thanks for your consideration. Jusdafax 16:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

If the answer is "no I won't intervene" perhaps he can also refresh everyone's memory as to whether he has ever changed an arbcom decision. A discussion on that point is proceeding elsewhere. Coretheapple (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiLeaks account of Jimbo's previous intervention was removed (but Jimbo did clarify his actions after the page was deleted). :) Count Iblis (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? Coretheapple (talk) 12:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

See here. I quote here only Jimbo's comment in full:

"Lest anyone think that there is a coverup here or that I said or did anything inappropriate requiring a "wikileaks" expose, here is the full text of what I wrote in that email: "I've let the ArbCom know I want them to look more closely at this. I believe, and this is just a personal opinion from watching all this from a bit of a distance, that David Tombe's rather vigorous and wordy advocacy on your behalf has done a great deal more harm than good, actually." I stand by that fully, and it isn't even remotely scandalous in any way. To claim that it is evidence of me instructing the ArbCom to do anything is ludicrous. I asked them to take a closer look. This is not unusual, and it is a role that I take that I am proud of - encouraging and coaching the ArbCom to be cautious and thoughtful. (Not that they need me to do it, as they are cautious and thoughtful by nature. Yet, I think it is good for me to advise, and particularly when difficult matters are brought to my attention, I hope that my advice sometimes is useful in helping to bring about a reflective moment of consideration. Our work is important.) That David Tombe's vigorous and wordy advocacy was counter-productive is, as I said, a personal opinion, and one that I would not have made public. It was a private remark intended to be helpful to Brews Ohare. I don't have my archives handy, but I'm pretty sure that I said to David Tombe's face that his many voluminous and lengthy emails to me (filled with strong accusations and anger) and others were not helping anything. I don't think either Brews or David were in any way scandalized or offended by this email, and so I can't conceive of why it should have been made public as if it were some kind of expose of something. Count Iblis, I think you owe me an apology, not so much for posting the email (though that was wrong) but for implying that it was some kind of "wikileak" of any importance.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)"

So, I guess Jimbo's POV would be that he can take a look at things and advice the ArbCom to take a fresh look based on what he has seen. It's not an appeal in the sense that Jimbo is going to dictate to ArbCom to impose a different measure or Jiobo himself overruling an ArbCom decision and imposing some alternative remedy himself. Count Iblis (talk) 13:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Count Iblis (talk) 13:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't understand the context - have no idea what he's talking about. However, this does confirm my suspicion that he's not going to wade into complex-sounding disputes unless there is some kind of public scandal involved and some major arbcom screwup of a particularly colossal and majestic nature. Coretheapple (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• One of the curiosities of being a figurehead like Jimbo is that people seem to assume you're omniscient. It would take Jimbo at least a full week merely to read all the material that makes up this case -- probably more. Does anybody here really think that's the most productive way for him to spend his time? Looie496 (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• • It's more to do about authority. The fundamental problem is that ArbCom is the de-facto SCOTUS of Wikipedia. Now contentious cases are often only looked at in detail for the first time at ArbCom. After a court case there can be a desire to appeal the ruling, so it's natural to expect that people will want to do that on at least some aspects of an ArbCom case, but then they see that the only authority who can take another look at a case is Jimbo. A way to deal with this problem would be for DR on Wikipedia to be expanded. You can think of cases having to fist go through binding DR first, rulings can then be appealed to ArbCom.

If the suggestion being made here is that there should be some form of binding process for dealing with conduct disputes below the ArbCom, which can be appealed to the ArbCom, I agree. There are currently three mechanisms for dealing with disruptive editors. A single administrator can block. This works reasonably well for most trolls, vandals, and flamers, at least when no other admin is willing to lift the block. "The community" can deal with cases at WP:ANI or WP:AN. However, that does not work on cases that divide or polarize the community. Those cases have to go to ArbCom, and ArbCom is slow and overloaded. I think that what is needed is not so much the ability to appeal from ArbCom, as some lesser form of conduct dispute resolution that can be appealed TO ArbCom. Is that what is being said? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Appeal to the WMF

It is my interpretation that, regardless of whether the policies or guidelines provide that ArbCom decisions may be appealed to the WMF, ArbCom decisions may be appealed to the WMF, because the WMF owns the servers and has ultimate authority. Since User:Jimbo Wales does not use the right to review or overturn decisions of the ArbCom (that right being similar to the right of the monarchs of the United Kingdom to veto Acts of Parliament), my questions are: first, is this talk page a reasonable place to file an appeal to the WMF of an ArbCom decision; second, does the filing party wish to appeal to the WMF? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I will personally comment that, although I think the decision of the ArbCom was suboptimal, the real problem is that the issue so deeply divides and polarizes the community that there was no resolution by the ArbCom that would leave editors happy. I would ask the filing party whether they really just want a reputation as a "sore loser", which could lead to further consequences down the road. In other words, I suggest that, right or wrong, they withdraw this request, but they probably know beyond knowledge that they are right, which is unfortunate. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. There is no doubt in my mind that some editors have a deep emotional investment in the content of those articles, and their views lie at one or other extreme of the spectrum of views on the subject. It is one of a number of subjects where there is a collision between deeply-held belief and the scientific consensus. Other examples include evolution, homeopathy and climate change. All have arrived at ArbCom. All have resulted in one or more partisans being topic banned, and further partisans being banned by the community going forward. I don't see this as a problem. In some cases there is problematic conduct by others (and yes, I put my hands up here having lost my temper with one of the partisans in the GMO case). A core difference is that I'm not here to Right Great Wrongs, and if I did end up banned from this area I would be irritated but ultimately not that badly affected. What we see here is evidence that some people are deeply emotionally invested in having Wikipedia content follow their views. And I think that's dangerous. The e-cig case is one I find especially interesting since the science is unsettled: they are almost certainly less harmful than smoking tobacco, but it's very unlikely indeed that they are harmless, and nicotine remains an addictive drug, so the regulatory concerns and legislative caution are entirely reasonable at this point in the evidence-gathering process. Needless to say tobacco industry sponsored research is unreliable, and the tobacco industry playbook, which worked so successfully in the past with both smoking and climate change, has been dusted off and given a fresh chapter. GMOs? We've been using them for decades, 85% of American maize is GM, and there is no credible evidence of risk or harm. A fresh generation is being indoctrinated by activists like the Food Babe (who sells products containing GM corn products, just fancy that), and we need to make sure that we keep content completely fact-based and neutral. That means every editor needs to edit with the mindset that they could be wrong. People who refuse to countenance that possibility, seriously impede progress by clogging up talk pages with endless demands for changes that get rejected every time. What we actually need is a process for binding content decisions with a moratorium on further discussion for at least six months. RfCs kind of do this, but the process around them is pretty creaky and although we occasionally close with a proposed moratorium there's no real consensus behind that process. Guy (Help!) 10:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what Guy disagrees with me about. I think that he and I are saying the same thing, which is that some editors have too much emotional investment in a subject and are here to right great wrongs, and that community is polarized and divided. Can he explain where he disagrees with me? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

If we were to just adopt the SPOV instead of NPOV on Wikipedia then a lot of the cases like this would be far easier to deal with. E.g. in the climate change case there was a similar fallout, because of the logic used by ArbCom to construe things in terms of only behavioral issues (taking that as fundamental while that is is provoked by scientific nonsense creeping in via otherwise reliable sources). Count Iblis (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that it is now common ground that in matters which lie within the purview of scientific inquiry, the scientific point of view is the neutral point of view. I acknowledge that a small number of people disagree and constantly seek changes that would draw a false balance between the scientific consensus, which by its very nature encompasses all relevant and supportable views and data, and an activist view which lies well outside that. But that doesn't happen very often. Most of the disputes right now around climate change are a back-and-forth between those who have a visceral hatred for the word "denial" and those who are comfortable using it but have a strong view about the abuse of the word "skeptic" to describe those who are, in fact,driven largely by ideology, not honest inquiry.

IMO most of active disputes in this area could be solved if we simply settled on a less loaded term which nonetheless encapsulates the fact that climate change deniers are in denial.

Creationism and homeopathy are a done deal on Wikipedia, at least until there is a profound shift in the science. Cranks who come along to advocate The Truth™ don't last long. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Question for Jimbo

Mr. Wales, current policy specifies you as person to whom Arbcom decisions can be appealed. Now some people have suggested reviewing that policy, but I believe that it would help to clarify current situation if you presented your own view on this. Reviewing an Arbcom decision, especially as a single person, is inevitably going to be a very time consuming process. Do you actually have time and interest to perform such duty, and continue doing so in future? Having an option of appeal is only meaningful if receiver of the appeal can review it in detail.--Staberinde (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The original question had to do with whether, in practice, there is any appeal from ArbCom decisions, and whether the nominal appeal (that is extremely unlikely) should be to Jimbo personally or to the WMF. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not true. I am the OP. My original posting was to lodge an appeal with Jimbo which I stated I was not expecting to be be considered by Jimbo until it had been through an appeal with ArbCom (I am still awaiting that decision from ArbCom so I am still not asking Jimbo to intervene). My posting and thread appear to have been "hijacked" (not meant as an attack - perhaps "piggy-backed" is better) by editors with meta-issues. I suspect wit the evidence I have provided, it would take Jimbo less than an hour to look at the findings relating to my OP that I have not edited in the GM-plant area, and then make a decision as to whether it is therefore legitimate for ArbCom to enforce a GM-Plant topic ban on me. This is actually a very simple case - there is no grey area about whether I have been disruptive or not, I simply have not edited the topic area so it is therefore impossible for me to have been disruptive. It is like finding someone guilty of burglary when there is no evidence whatsoever they were at the scene of the crime.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Glyphosate was the area wherein you had the most issues and is a chemical inexorably linked to GM plants as the article makes clear (GM plants are even in the lede). That article is in the "GM-plant area", as you put it, so you did indeed edit in that area. Capeo (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

My edits there were only in relation to animals. Please supply diffs that I made any edits in relation to GM-plants.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I think User:Staberinde asks basically the right question. The Arbitration Policy says the route of appeal from ArbCom decisions is to Jimbo. An appeal has been filed by User:DrChrissy. However, based on some past events, some people seem to doubt that Jimbo will actually consider an appeal. So the real question to Jimbo is, in two words: Will you? Neutron (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The answer to the two questions Robert McClenon listed may be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Appeal of decisions and the direct quotes from Jimbo himself at Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo.

There is no such thing as an "appeal to the WMF", but, as detailed in Wikipedia:Office actions, if you have a grievance that is grounded in the law or a violations of Wikimedia (not Wikipedia) standards such as libel, unjustifiable invasion of personal privacy, or copyright infringement you may complain to the WMF off-wiki (postal mail, email, telephone, or in person).

The answer to Staberinde's question (does Jimbo have time to review Arbcom decisions) is that Jimbo does not review all or even most Arbcom decisions, and that appealing to Jimbo does not automatically trigger Jimbo doing any reviewing.

To answer Neutron's question, it is a demonstrable fact that the vast majority of appeals to Jimbo get no response from Jimbo. The reality is that if Arbcom really did something so bad that that Jimbo needed to review the decision, it wouldn't be just the person who was sanctioned complaining. Everybody would be complaining.

The bottom line is found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Scope and responsibilities: The Arbitration Committee [acts] as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. Jimbo is here to intervene if, say, the Scientologists manage to elect a majority at Arbcom or it can be shown that a majority of Arbcom is taking bribes. He isn't here to undermine Arbcom being the "final binding decision-maker". --Guy Macon (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

You just don't get it, DrChrissy. ArbCom carved out an GF exemption for you from the standard TB everyone else received because editors said your edits to animal articles outside of the disputed area were worthwhile. They could have easily just applied the standard TB to you as well and it's looking more and more like they should have at this point. Capeo (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Capeo, you are totally correct. I do not get it. I was disruptive on the Glyphosate Talk page, but the bit I do not get is why I am banned from GM-plants. It is not a favour to "carve out" an exemption, accuse me of being disruptive there and then impose a ban on me for something I never did in the first place! The Glyphosate page is also linked to Weeds, Fish, Mammmals, Amphibians, etc. Where is the logic in banning me from just GM-plants? If you look at the disruption I caused on Talk/Glyphosate, it is all related to interactions with Jytdog. We are now both i-banned. Problem solved. In my book, it is never acceptable to find someone guilty of a crime they did not commit. And every single posting on here so far has failed to provide evidence of me making any posting whatsoever about GM-Plants, let alone being disruptive.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOJUSTICE. There was no crime and this isn't a court. ArbCom is responsible for ending existing conflict and, ideally, cutting off foreseeable conflicts before they happen. Capeo (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Again you are correct. There has been no crime because I have not edited on GM-Plant pages, and this is not a court, it is Jimbo's talk page where I have lodged a potential appeal against ArbCom which effectively is a court for the project.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no crime because there is no court because you have no right to edit here. Keep thinking in legalistic terms and you're liable to run into the "pursued too persistently or vigorously such claims may end up prompting the community to sanction you for disruption" clause of WP:NOJUSTICE. And that's what I mean by you don't get it. I've seen people go down the "too persistently or vigorously" road and it never ends well for them. Capeo (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh. I have no right to edit here? Please would you elaborate.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

No legal right. Private servers. Hence people can be banned or restricted. Hence no justice. Capeo (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry - but I have completely lost the jist of your argument. I am simply a content editor who wants (or at least, did want) to edit articles on animals, ethology and animal welfare. I have no inclination to become involved in the legalities of editing on Jimbo's talk page, unless of course I am breaking a law?DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

You have no right to edit Wikipedia. Nobody does. Ultimately it's at the discretion of the WMF. So it's not right to invoke high concepts of justice. It's more akin to a pub where the landlord can bar rowdy customers. Alexbrn (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:FREESPEECH. Some editors, especially some combative editors, don't understand, and think that editing Wikipedia is a right rather than a privilege. Making Wikipedia the encyclopedia that almost anyone can edit requires, unfortunately, that a few restrictions be put on the privilege of a few editors to edit.

A more traditional example may be informative. If you want to publish a guest column in the Washington Post, and Jeffrey Bezos doesn't let you publish the column, that isn't censorship, and it isn't a violation of freedom of expression. It is indeed the exercise of freedom of the press, because he owns the presses. If Muriel Bowser were to deny you the ability to publish the column, that would be censorship and would be a violation of freedom of expression. You don't own the WMF servers. The WMF owns the servers, and has the right to make its own rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Guy Macon says: "...Jimbo does not review all or even most Arbcom decisions, and that appealing to Jimbo does not automatically trigger Jimbo doing any reviewing" and "To answer Neutron's question, it is a demonstrable fact that the vast majority of appeals to Jimbo get no response from Jimbo." I don't doubt that those statements are true, but if they are true, then the current wording of the Arbitration Policy is incorrect, or at best, misleading. It creates an expectation among parties to ArbCom cases, who are disappointed with the decision, that they can appeal to Jimbo and that they will get a response, one way or another. Maybe the policy should be changed to add something like "A party who files an appeal with Jimbo Wales and does not receive a response within 30 days should assume that the ArbCom decision will not be reversed or modified." The number of days is not the important thing, it could be 45, it could be 60. I wouldn't make it less than 30. (But whatever it is, if the appeal is made on this page, a "noarchive" code has to be included so it doesn't just get cleaned off the page a day or two after non-Jimbo-type-people stop commenting on it.) That way, the appeal doesn't just disappear into a black hole with no way of knowing whether it is ever going to emerge. There would be a "decision" of sorts, even if it is a decision solely through inaction. Neutron (talk) 20:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Ultimately the whole point is that Jimbo can intervene to do what's best for Wikipedia according to WP:IAR. This also means that there won't necessarily be any formal rule Jimbo will have to stick to, because whatever formal rules you can invent will also have the occasional exception. Any system you can invent will eventually encounter the exceptional case that it can't deal with well properly and then you have to make a choice about whether to respect the rules of the system or to do what the system intends to do. Here on Wikipedia we've made the latter choice as WP:IAR says. In the rare case that something isn't working well w.r.t. some ArbCom ruling, that requires Jimbo to get involved. Count Iblis (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, IAR is a "rule" too, so I guess we're supposed to ignore it. Neutron (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

If that's helpful to improve or maintain Wikipedia, which then implies that invoking IAR to not stick to some guideline or rule actually was not helpful to improve or maintain Wikipedia, therefore IAR was not invoked correctly in the first place. Count Iblis (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I would note that my question is not really about current specific request, but in general. It is not hard to imagine that we could end up with extremely divisive Arbcom decision. Probably not "scientologist takeover" mentioned earlier, but more like Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 3 becoming a blue link, assuming that eventually manage to finish the current one. If appeal to Jimbo only works then he has time, and he generally doesn't, then that part of policy is just a hot air and should be revised/deleted.--Staberinde (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

"Appeals to Jimbo only work when he has time, and he generally doesn't" is an example of thinking about it the wrong way. Try thinking this way: "Appeals to Jimbo only work when Jimbo sees an otherwise unsolvable problem that requires his intervention. If and when that happens, Jimbo will drop everything else and make time". The problem is not that Jimbo has limited time. the problem (if you want to call it that) is that Jimbo has purposely stepped away from a role that would involve him reviewing Arbcom decisions that are not an otherwise unsolvable problem that requires his intervention. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Feinstein's next attack on Wikipedia

As I'm sure most here are aware, several aspect of the Stop Online Piracy Act, against which Wikipedia mobilized in 2012, are reflected^[26] in the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act that was passed as part of the omnibus spending bill. Now the next step in Senator Dianne Feinstein's unwavering decades-long crusade against freedom of speech is underway.^[27]

As described by its sponsor, the bill would require "an electronic communication service or a remote computing service" to report any "terrorist activity" it knows about. The trick is that, while "terrorist activity" is required to include sharing any information about explosives or weapons of mass destruction under various circumstances, it is not limited to that: it permits the United States Attorney General, an appointed executive official, to define the phrase as he sees fit. Thus the bill is an enabling act granting the executive branch an open-ended authority to punish sites like Wikipedia if they do not report their users for making whatever kind of informative editing the appointee doesn't approve of.

In response to this threat, Wikipedia needs to take certain actions.

1. The WMF must either sign or issue a concurring opinion with the industry coalition against the bill.

2. The WMF must have its legal staff provide editors with specific advice pertaining to 18 U.S. Code para 842, the specific existing law, potential violations of which must be reported if Feinstein's proposed law is heeded.

3. One issue with which I am particularly concerned is the definition of "knowing that such person intends to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence" and the related provision from the previous part. Past enforcement of this has followed a terroristic pattern, going after rare soft targets like Sherman Austin. Nonetheless, Jimmy Wales has a famous slogan, "...every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge." Well, is that already illegal under U.S. law? And if so, is Wales criminally culpable if he edits, or hosts, an article about a nuclear bomb, knowing and indeed intending that the Caliph or one of his men, who doubtless would love to own one, might choose to read it?

4. Any report of "terrorist activity" may land editors on the no-fly list, which is part of a Terrorist Screening Database used by some countries as a reason for denial of travel, and by others for indefinite detention and torture.^[28] Obama recently proposed to use this list – in which no due process is ever used – to deny gun purchases (but why stop there? Can't a car be used for multiple murder?). Wikipedia will need to canvass contributors to see if they are subjected to such measures regardless of their country of residence or "citizenship", whether there is formal reporting mandated or data is harvested from public article history records.

5. The WMF needs to understand exactly how much information about a user it is going to be required to turn over if Feinstein's bill passes. It is hard to picture it will be required to make a report, yet be allowed to insist on a warrant if asked for details. It is time for Wikipedia to start sanitizing any non-public records now, while it is legal to do so, and to advise users on what actions they may be able to take to protect themselves.

6. If expert legal opinion occurs that this bill is an existential threat to its educational mission, the WMF should campaign against this bill with more vigor than it opposed SOPA. It is worth making this fight, in the hope that injustice delayed is injustice denied. Wnt (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't be worried about Wikipedia's article on nuclear bomb. It's the articles on acetone peroxide, ANFO, nitroglycerine, nitrogen triiodide, etc. that would be problematic. --Carnildo (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@Carnildo: I chose that article for two reasons. The first is that if there is a terrorist in ISIS working on a nuclear bomb, wherever he came from, whether he trained in Islamabad or in Berkeley, it is a near certainty that he will actually have looked up nuclear weapon and its sub-articles at some point in his life, and made that a part of his education. The issue is whether we go by the standard of looking only at whether terrorists might access the data, or instead consider that an educated populace has many effects, some positive, some negative, and have faith that the positives of a free society outweigh the negatives.

The second reason is that these articles, like nuclear weapon design and Pit (nuclear weapon), are useful in understanding, for example, the role of breeder reactors and nuclear reprocessing in generating plutonium to make the bombs. So if our society were not committed, fully, to preserving the availability of such information that has become known to the world, we would be giving up the ability of the public to make informed decisions about some of the more controversial facilities required for nuclear weapons production. It follows, logically, that in a Feinstein America, it would be a threat to national security to allow this public to have any say in such decisions – so any pretense of democracy must be put aside to ensure that military specialists would have total control over them. I think this is the case for the lesser explosives you mention – for example, plants like this have been exploding periodically for more than a hundred years. But the public policy implications are most obvious with the nuclear example. Wnt (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The WMF should move all its data to servers located in Switzerland. Count Iblis (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

That's an easy idea, but it doesn't really reflect what this bill portends, nor what life may be like in a post-legal society. I mean, consider three Google properties: the Google+ online social media site, the Google search engine, and the Chrome browser. If a bill can coerce the company into reporting online "terrorist activity", i.e. the posting of bomb manuals or ISIS videos, why would I expect that to be limited only to the social media site, rather than requiring them to report everyone who looks up such things, or even everyone who uses their browser to go to sites on a list? The bill says "while engaged in providing an electronic communication service or a remote computing service to the public" … these actually have definitions, which can be traced to "any service which provides to users thereof the ability to send or receive wire or electronic communications" and " the provision to the public of computer storage or processing services by means of an electronic communications system" respectively. I have no idea whether they could include browsers and search engines this way, but with Feinstein, I am never sufficiently pessimistic. (To clarify, the bill does not require companies to look for terrorist activity, but if the Attorney General writes them a letter and says that anyone who reads X, Y, or Z is engaging in it, and they have access to know who that is, I expect that's "actual knowledge") It has been as much as admitted that spies are looking for end-runs around encryption by going to the user's own system to get decrypted material, so I don't think they are innocent of considering the possibility. Furthermore, remember that all this has to do with reports that, thanks to Feinstein and others, can now be made under CISPA without fear of liability; they can then be integrated directly into no-fly list data, without any trial or even human examination ever taking place. True, by some miracle of coincidental conservatism, Congress rejected using that to deny a right to bear arms, but with events like this I wonder if the 'privilege' of driving will be so fortunate. I really don't see very many potential obstacles left to a model where people who read the wrong Wikipedia page later find out that they're not allowed to drive a car, regardless of where they live or where the servers are. Wnt (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

And yet we still don't offer read access (no editing) to Wikipedia as a hidden service through Tor, which would make it impossible for anyone to find out who read what Wikipedia page. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Trust me – it really doesn't, just makes it harder; Should someone want to find out what you've been up to online, no matter what they do, you will leave a trace that can be tracked. There are some fairly well-known holes in Tor which means it is certainly not 100% secure or anonymous, despite what some people think. Mdann52 (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas!!
	Hello, I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!    –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 16:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Please help me at [29]

I feel there may be some abuse of process issues arising, e.g. Unwarranted and Publicized ( in the Result section ) use of Checkuser, which are demonstrated in this Request for enforcement which within 8 hours had another Administrator's "Result" recommendation that I, who has never been blocked over 7 years, receive a ban against editing any articles relating to U.S. politics.

Please read the entire request and comments, if you can make the time, and weigh in if you feel so disposed, even if it is in favour of the ban. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nocturnalnow: Mis-use of checkuser should be reported to WP:AUSC – however IMO, checking if an IP is connected to an account within these circumstances is well within WP:CHK (reason #4). Mdann52 (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I still hope Jimbo has a look at the discussion as the CheckUser issue is only one of several abuse of process issues, in my opinion, which are occurring at and revealed within the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nocturnalnow.Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

After a quick look, I must say I disagree with your CheckUser assessment since this particular usage was without a valid reason and specifically breaches this part of the policy: "checks must only be made in order to prevent or reduce potential or actual disruption, or to investigate credible, legitimate concerns of bad faith editing.". Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

...Which is exactly what was done here (any new accounts or IP's that show up may be subject to such checks), especially as this was a sockpuppetry concern – as I said, Jimbo is unlikely to act on this, so any complaints about CU use should go to WP:AUSC. Mdann52 (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand. Are you a "gatekeeper" here? I did not come here to get your opinion and I think it is in bad form for you to press your opinion here. Regardless of your opinion, I think that the usage was without a valid reason and specifically breaches this part of the policy: "checks must only be made in order to prevent or reduce potential or actual disruption, or to investigate credible, legitimate concerns of bad faith editing.". I now see there is also an Ombudsman commission resource re: CheckUser complaints. Thanks again,Mdann52 and please continue to express your views on my talk page if you wish.Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The Rambling Man interfering with the reference desk permanent record

Transferred from "Personal attacks by user The Rambling Man" above.

Of more concern is that The Rambling Man, (who bills himself as the worst administrator on Wikipedia), removes bona fide posts claiming they are vandalism and blocks the poster as a vandal. These are the posts he removed from this board last night:

Merry Christmas

Arbcom election 2015 - A satisfying result for the GGTF.

Transferred from User talk:Liz at her request. I don't think that anyone who surreptitiously removes evidence from an SPI page expects to remain an administrator for much longer.

Greetings. On Thursday afternoon you revdeleted an edit summary. The words were indeed grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive, but if what an administrator says may never be repeated for that reason, how can the case against him be made out? Jc3s5h instituted an SPI against an editor, filing his "evidence" at 14:40. At 14:44, without giving any indication of what he had done, Elockid blocked. At 15:51 a complete answer to the charge was filed, but at 16:22 Future Perfect at Sunset blocked the informant and removed the comment. The block was serious misuse of the tools because he made no reference to it. Never before has an administrator who is not closing the case issued a block, and never before has evidence been removed from a case page. The reason for this is obvious - it heavily weights the outcome against it being fair. At 17:19 the evidence was resubmitted and at 17:20 the same administrator again blocked and removed the comment leaving no trail. Two gross abuses of the tools within an hour. Chillingly, at 17:29 Elockid protected the page. Never before has an SPI case page been protected, with good reason - it guarantees that the process will not be fair.

At the same time Elockid annotated the page with the words "Blocked by me", giving no hint that this had been done within four minutes of inception. He made no effort to provide a reasoned judgment (or indeed any judgment) although this is invariably done. Three gross abuses of the tools within three hours. The timetable shows that the two administrators acted in collusion, having decided (as evidenced by the block of the respondent immediately upon the filing of the complaint) right at the start of the case what the outcome was going to be. 86.151.49.173 (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, 86.151.49.173. Can you supply some diffs/links to the edits you are concerned about? You are making some serious charges and you need to back that up with evidence.

I'm not sure what you are expecting me to do about this or if you are just venting. If you believe you have a case, bring it to WP:ANI but be sure you have diffs to back up your claims. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

That's been tried. Specifically, a 266 - paragraph report was filed at ANI, but it was removed by the same two miscreants. You can access it from history - Bishonen has received the same invitation Special:Diff/694047903#A little ditty. You can't just read it off her talk page because the revisionists have been at work there as well. 86.151.49.173 (talk) 02:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Additional evidence

NeilN acts in concert with the other two. This was a concern raised at his RfA [30]. A report on this was filed at the reference desk and removed by the miscreants Special:Diff/694063017#The reference desks have been protected long - term for sockpuppetry but Bishonen, who has investigated, finds no sockpuppetry. The issue was also raised in an arbitration proceeding Special:Diff/675681880#Evidence presented by 92.31.93.163, Special:Diff/677736116#Proposals by 92.31.93.163, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles/Workshop#Point 8. 86.151.49.173 (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Response to now - deleted post by Ivanvector

Ivanvector asked why an editor was fed up with Samtar. You only have to go back to this report here on 21 November to get the answer to that one:

God bless you, Katie!

Previous discussion at Special:Diff/691607300#God bless you, Katie!. There's been some trollish discussion overnight:

Personally, I think ANI should be indefinitely semi'd instead of temporarily semi'd.

- ElectricBurst 21:16, 20 November 2015.

There isn't consensus to do so at this moment. If it changes, then I can implement it.

- Elockid 21:17, 20 November 2015.

Earlier, the personal attacks were flowing like wine:

Mentioning him in the above thread probably conjured up some bad mojo.

-- NeilN15:40, 20 November 2015.

Saying his name three times while spinning clockwise should do it ...

- Samtar 15:48, 20 November 2015.

(talk page watcher) samtar I know that works for the Scottish play but using it in other contexts must be done with care, so that you don't conjure up this fellow :-)

- MarnetteD 16:06, 20 November 2015.

Cheers :) no more Wikipedia rituals for me!

- Samtar 16:22, 20 November 2015.

Quite frankly, this is disgusting, and this person wants us to vote for him in the Arbitration Committee election. I have a far better idea. Instead of protecting the noticeboards and the reference desks for a lengthy period let's just de - sysop Elockid and NeilN and not vote for Samtar. Simple. 78.145.21.18 (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Please don't feed the trolls

Some people who are not well - behaved do not like others who are. In fact they can't stand them [31]. You have to understand the psychology.

So what's the admin action required here? Our old friend Future Perfect at Sunset has removed from Reference desk/Language an informative answer from an impeccable source: Baseball Bugs. The cheeky reason for this is that there is no reason for doing it other than that he feels like it. 213.107.94.232 (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Another serious concern is The Rambling Man's removal of posts from the reference desk. This makes discussions, which are supposed to be a long - term resource, unintelligible. Here are the posts he removed last night:

So the mobile phones don't show UTC because you need a gizmo within the phone to do it, which may work but probably won't. And anyway, they don't show UTC because the display does not include seconds. So there's no exposure to UTC as opposed to GMT/BST. Same remark applies to radio - controlled clocks, which don't display seconds either. So far, the exposure of the general population to UTC is zero. Now let's consider the Greenwich Time Signal. UTC is an Alice - in - Wonderland type system in which you can ask the March Hare the time, he can pull out his pocketwatch and look at it and he won't be able to tell you. This is because there is no clock in existence that shows UTC. The times shown by all the clocks are analysed and, several months later, somebody makes an arbitrary decision as to what the time actually was. Compare this fiasco with the eminently sensible system set up by our legislators which is well supported:

• Platform clocks provide GMT/BST to the exact second. No messing with leap seconds - if you watch them at the time a leap second is supposed to be inserted nothing happens. So Dbfirs and Akld guy have it the wrong way round. Trains are sent off according to the time on the platform clock. If you let the leaps accumulate to sixty and then move your watch back you will miss your train.

• Electric clocks. The inaccuracy of the correction system (adjusting the oscillations) does not permit the clock to distinguish between GMT/BST and UTC.

• A countrywide network of public clocks set to GMT/BST.

For example:

• Big Ben. Seen and heard over a wide area of Central London and regularly broadcast by the BBC.

• Local chiming clocks. Example: the clock on top of Lambeth Town Hall, seen and heard across the town centre. Also by millions as they transit between the overground station and Brixton tube (subway) station, which is where the underground system begins.

• In the financial district: The clocks in the plaza outside Canary Wharf station have a sweep second hand. You can bet your bottom dollar that this doesn't suddenly jerk when a leap second is added.

• The clocks on London buses. The main display doesn't show seconds but the display on the closed circuit television screen immediately beneath it does.

If all else fails, Britons can use the common sense for which they are renowned. Listening to the Greenwich Time signal and making a split - second adjustment to compensate for the time since the last leap second gives the legal time.

All these issues are notable. We now have a new Arbitration Committee, one that shows signs of having some sense. Someone should contact them and ask them to look at the matter again. 86.151.51.8 (talk) 13:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The ultimate base source is GMT. It has just been confirmed that at least for the next eight years UTC will be fudged to be as close as possible to invariant GMT. Of course, it's not invariant in the true sense of the word, but having varied by a mere one part in three million over the past two thousand years that's as near as makes no difference. 213.107.94.232 (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Go back to sleep

I think the above and the following illustrate why we need to retain Appeal to Jimbo. Last night Zzuuzz, without giving any reason, reversed a post which 81.110.41.64 made to her own talk page. Also last night, NeilN imposed long - term protection on StuRat's talk page. StuRat objected and another administrator removed it, but there's no guarantee that there will always be a helpful administrator around to do that. 86.151.48.51 (talk) 08:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)