User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Will beback appeals

I'm hatting this thread and quoting Newyorkbrad on the details. A polite and thoughtful discussion of ArbCom transparency, and also whether ArbCom bans should beyond 1 year in any other than very exception cases would be welcomed. Notice in particular that I said "polite and thoughtful". Insulting them is not helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC) Will Beback's appeal is under consideration and discussion by the Committee, although I should not say more here. It is obvious that this thread was opened by a disruptive banned user having no genuine or legitimate interest in Will Beback's appeal, and should not have been entertained. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Jimbo User:Will Beback was banned from Wikipedia about 2 years ago. He's never socked. He posted the appeals to his talk page. The appeals were removed and his talk page access was revoked. It is a very sick practice. I'd like to ask you please why he and others are not allowed to have open hearings on their appeals? What the arbcom is afraid of? Why it is allowed to bully content creators? Jimbo, I am asking you because 1.You were personally involved in the case. 2.You are a member of the arbcom secret list. 3. You like to repeat that to get unbanned is as easy as to follow the rules listed in Wikipedia:Standard offer71.198.249.228 (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC) Because Arbitration sanctions literally cannot be challenged with a standard unblock request; it has to be done via email. The standard offer also does not apply to editors banned due to an Arbitration sanction (though it does apply to editors banned most every other way). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Ban appeals. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC) They literally can, arbcom just choose not to. Second Quantization (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC) As an aside, I'm always a fan of the "think of the content creators" pity plea. Resolute 19:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC) Resolute, all I am saying is that the arbcom behaves as it is afraid of the truth. A few days ago you accused a few members of the arbcom of being cowards. It is much easier to behave as cowards, when nobody is allowed to see their secret communications. It is just wrong. All arbcom's proceedings that do not involve outing should be public.71.198.249.228 (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC) Such is life in glorious Wikipedia. Duke Olav Otterson of Bornholm (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC) This may not be the proper location for all this, but I urge the committee to lift ban on Will Beback at least on a probationary basis...--MONGO 20:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC) I just want to clarify that I brought up Will Beback's appeal only as an example. The point I'd like to make is that the arbcom's proceedings should be much more transparent than they are now. 71.198.249.228 (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC) Will Beback's appeal is under consideration and discussion by the Committee, although I should not say more here. It is obvious that this thread was opened by a disruptive banned user having no genuine or legitimate interest in Will Beback's appeal, and should not have been entertained. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC) What a clever observation! Of course my thread is not about Will Beback's appeal. It is about the transparency of the arbcom, and I have openly admitted as much just above, and you, Newyorkbrad, got yourself down to the level of that jerk. Tell me what I am getting wrong, and don't accuse me of disruptions with no evidences, coward, and remember Jimbo has an open door policy.76.126.140.150 (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok lets try this again without some jerk removing. This case illustrates the lack of desire by arbcom or the admins on this site to let banned users come back. To say they can appeal is a joke and everyone knowd it. Its like saying they can appeal to jimbo. Hes not going to undo it and neither is the arbcom. So there is no benefit to followingvthe rules of the ban. Cause regardlesd of whatever they say, their actionsvshow their true intentions. Bans are forever and ever, period, the end. And to leaky, ignoring me does not make me go away, it just pisses me off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scalpadasnake (talk • contribs) 23:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes agree with the concerns around the lack of transparency by arbcom. It however appears that many do not wish to speak out against this organization as they are concerned about future repercussions with respect to their ability to edit.

This concern appears justified as the little bit of evidence used to ban Will for more than two years includes this statement made on Jimmy Wale's talk page "Tell that to the ArbCom." as mentioned here under battleground conduct. Thus not surprised by IPs raising the concern.

Another interesting aspect of this case was of course that in it arbcom overturned a block by Jimmy Wales. I do not know if they asked his permission to do this before hand or not.

So being one always interested in solutions to issues what options are there for increasing arbcom transparency? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Just think about that: Will submitted his latest request somewhere in January. It is March now, and he still got no response, and Newyorkbrad states that the appeal is under consideration. The arbitrators act as they ought to decide on a matter of great importance to the national security of USA and Europe combined. They simply look ridiculous. 76.126.140.150 (talk) 07:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

So if we need greater oversight of arbcom by the community how do we bring that about? Arbcom is supposed to represent us as they are elected and if/when they do not we need to figure out what options we should put in place to 1) determine if they are not representing the community 2) what authority the community should be given to deal with it Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't generally involve myself with Arbcom but in their defense I recently raised an issue privately with them and I think they handled it very well. This is not to say that everything they do is handled well but I have a bit of faith in them. I think if there were big problems in Arbcom we would hear about that in public from multiple arbs. The biggest problem I have with them is that they can be slow but that is to be expected given that they're volunteers and have a huge scope. If anyone has any constructive suggestions for improvement they can start an RfC. --Pine^✉ 07:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes that is sort of the direct I am looking at. Wish further decision before drafting a RfC though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pine. For info, ArbCom site-bans very few editors indeed and it's almost always for outing/harassment. We desysop and topic-ban much more liberally. Desysops can be overturned by the community via a new RFA; topic-ban appeals are heard publicly. This particular instance is, apparently, a sock of one community-banned user agitating on behalf of an ArbCom-banned one and is far from representative.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@Roger Davies: Thank you. I don't plan to involve myself in the details of this user's case. --Pine^✉ 22:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User:AGK appears to be attempting to suppress discuss of an arbcom ruling as I have brought up here at AN [1]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears every substantive word in that sentence is false. When, I'm so sorry to have to ask, will you drop the stick? AGK [•] 22:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

And not discuss the functioning of arbcom? Or are you asking that I not discuss your accusation that I am "editing at the direction of a banned editor"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like ArbCom has a hard time undoing their own decisions in such harassment cases, but is much more magnanimous in undoing regular admin actions in fairly similar cases. I can think of an intermittent harassment going on for ~6-12 months, resulting in an average of about one ANI thread every two months or so, where an approximately one month block was considered more than sufficient by ArbCom. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

You surprise me, Someone not using his real name. Both ArbCom and the community always take off-wiki harassment, outing, threats of outing, contacting workplaces and so forth extremely seriously. The usual outcome is a long ban. No admin engaging in such conduct would keep the tools. Is this the kind of conduct you're talking about here?  Roger Davies ^talk 09:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Autofixing cites

As discussed last month, I am working to "autofix" (or auto-correct) about 10,000 pages for various invalid cite parameters in the wp:CS1 Lua-based cite templates. I have created a working Lua prototype, to begin comparing the results when a citation has been autofixed for simpler display. Compare the sample results:

{{cite web |title=Test1 |last=Doe |pages=3--4|Guardian|http://z |office=London}} autofix: Template:Cite web/auto current: Doe. "Test1". pp. 3--4.

Note, in the above autofixed example, the missing "url=" parameter is set with the text "http://z" in the 5th parameter, and linked to title "Test1" while the double-hyphen in pages "3--4" is filtered as a single dash, 3–4. Next, the 'Guardian' is shown, followed by "office: London" as extra text. By comparison, the current cite is awash in a sea of alarming red-error messages which overpower the text but demand attention to the simple details which have been quietly autofixed in the first case. I, personally, have been distracted by so much red-error text, as focused on fixing red-messages while other, more important, errors remain in the nearby text of an article.

Why Bot fixes have not worked: Many people had claimed that Bot-driven updates would correct most invalid cites, but after a whole year, it has not happened. I think a major problem is the risk of mis-judging the invalid cite parameters and having a Bot "permanently" update the page in a manner contrary to the original cite intention. That risk has had a chilling effect, and scares a Bot programmer to not attempt every automated correction. By contrast, an autofixed cite is a relatively temporary change, altering the displayed page but not actually storing the results, and hence, a "bug" in autofixing can be improved by revising the Lua-based templates, to re-display a better autofixed result when a page is viewed later. The risk in autofixing is much lower, because the original invalid cite data is still available to re-autofix and redisplay, unlike the Bot-updated pages which hide the original cite in the prior revision and hinder the ability to re-fix a mistaken automated update. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Handles a hundred respell rules: Although the autofixing of invalid cite parameters appears to be a workable solution to auto-correct 10,000 pages for common typos, it seems to require over 100 possible misspellings (or respelled aliases) for Lua to catch the vast majority of problems, such as spelling "url=" as capital "Url=" or people using "web=" to set the URL address link. Many respell keywords can be detected by checking prefix/suffix letters of each parameter name, where "author=" can be detected by checking prefix/suffix combinations of "au__or" or "a__hor" to match invalid names: "autor=" or "arthor=" or "auther=" or "auhtor=" etc. For some parameters, there is a common respelled form, such as "published=" often used for "publisher=" along with rare misspellings like "publlisher=" or "pulbisher" or "pubsher" etc. See in example below:

Example: {cite web/auto |last=Doe|titolo=Title|Url=//:x|dtae=May 2011|pubsher=BBC |vol=IV|pg=9 |otters=Fred Smith|translator=Mary Dohh |locaiton=London |First=Tom |Editors=Smith, Dee|BBC News}} autofixed: Template:Cite web/auto currently: Doe. Translated by Mary Dohh.

Although few pages have contained so many invalid parameters (some have), the above example shows many of the common typos, such as "vol=" for "volume=" (and even rare "dtae=" for "date="), which occur in more than 1,000 pages. However, the autofix algorithms will correct hundreds of potential problems in over 10,000 live pages, including hundreds of draft pages in user-space. It detected invalid "pubsher=" as the "publisher=" parameter, while autofixing over 13 red-error messages, to allow live typesetting of the page as if nothing much was a problem for readers. -Wikid77 06:04, 10 March, 15:52, 11 March, 08:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

10 years of editing in Wikipedia - when will I get my golden watch?

Dear Jimbo, my son aged nine just asked me after going to bed: how was Wikipedia founded? Well, this is a second question. Maybe not many people can remember. I am here (in German Wikipedia mainly) for nearly ten years now. I started in April 2004. So, how many year are there to spend in this company until a volunteer employee will get a present for ones jubilee? Because, ten years are a very long time in the digital world. This is a very serious question and I hope for your serious answer. Thank you very much, Sir! Yours sincerely Simplicius (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Since admins only get a crappy t-shirt, hoping for a gold watch might be over-optimistic. You could, however, join the Wikipedia:Ten Year Society. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The watch has been delivered. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I thought the postman would bring it. -- Simplicius (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

By the way, was Jimmy ever invited to join this certain society? Simplicius (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he was. Graham87 02:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

So, long time editors like Jimbo are at least still tolerated in the project, aren't they? -- Simplicius (talk) 12:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Why wouldn't they be? That question makes no sense.--Atlan (talk) 09:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

My question can be simply answered with a "yes" or a "no". Your answer with a "why" does not make sense. -- Simplicius (talk) 07:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Does change really = revert?

Bbb23 recently blocked me for violating 3RR, but has refused to provide the four revert diffs. Through discussion here and here, it seems that Bbb23's interpretation of 3RR is that any change to the existing text of an article is a revert and can be counted as such by an admin while justifying a block for violating 3RR:

• "You changed the text in both paragraphs of the lead. Those changes constitute a revert. Some editor or editors wrote that language. You undid their "actions" by changing it."

And

• "Remember, a revert is changing information on a page, and that include edits that you might not think of as disruptive".

Just moments ago, Bbb23 explained his interpretation of WP:3RR:

• "If an earlier editor or editors wrote something in the article, a change to that material constitutes a revert per the definition in the policy. That doesn't mean, however, that administrators don't have discretion not to count what technically constitutes a revert. Obviously, context matters, and, perhaps less obviously but not suprisingly, administrators may disagree on how to exercise their discretion." --Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this accurate, because it comes as a serious shock to me; after 40,000 edits and 4 1/2 years on Wikipedia I'd never heard this before. Is copyediting virtually synonymous with reverting? If I used 5 edits to trim inaccurate and unsourced material from an article is that really a 3RR violation? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I suppose it's all a matter of intent. If a person is edit-warring, it doesn't matter if they're physically changing the text via normal editing or hitting a REVERT button, it's a revert. On the other hand, of course, making 5 successive changes to the same paragraph during the normal editing process isn't "reverting" at all. The 3RR prohibition is an, ummmmm, "bright line" proscription against edit warring. Carrite (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

If its a matter of intent then all editors are subject to blocks at all times. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It's yet another case of a policy that got broken because making the rules all-encompassing in order to prevent people from abusing them by weaselling out of a violation instead allows other people to abuse them by accusing others of violations. Ken Arromdee (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• History repeats itself. See this AN thread and this corresponding WT:EW thread for similar problems with this admin. Policy interpretation is not the only issue -- the behavioral problems persist: stonewalling, refusing requests to list the diffs in question, even deleting such requests.[2] Back then, I brushed off Bbb23's behavior without taking further action, however I no longer believe the matter can be ignored. There are a host of behavioral problems with this admin (even open violations of WP:ADMINACCT, e.g. here), and I believe a case should be brought to remedy the situation. vzaak 04:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

In general, a revert involves changing text back to what it was before. A pure revert is a revert to a previous version of the article. But it's still reverting if you (for example) revert one section of an article to a previous version while at the same time making some tiny little change elsewhere. It is unclear to me without looking more closely (which I won't do unless there's some really good reason for me to get more directly involved, which there probably isn't) whether the changes under discussion here constitute reverts.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, don't you see this strict interpretation as a serious contradiction to the fifth pillar and WP:BOLD? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit-warring isn't just slamming the undo link, this was the kind of subterfuge one usually sees in contentious political areas like Israel-Palestine or the Troubles. Un-discussed changes were being made by this user to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums, several attempts and restorations of attempts to introduce language that users are free to ignore the style guides and suggestions of the project. Which is true, of course, but being right is not a reason to edit war, barring vandalism cleanup. Tarc (talk) 13:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Tarc, take another look. None of my edits "introduce[d] language that users are free to ignore the style guides", in fact my edits were an attempt to dispel that notion, not support it. Bbb23 said that this non-contentious copyedit that was completely unrelated to the material Static reverted was counted as one of my four reverts. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• If Bbb23 is interpreting the guideline correctly, then this edit is a revert and I have only two more edits that I can make to this article today before I violate 3RR. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• Bbb23's definition of a revert goes way beyond copyediting. Here he says that "a revert is changing information on a page". Given that Bbb23 feels entitled to block without warning long term productive content builders with clean block logs on this issue, does this mean that, under his new regime, all content builders should be advised to suspend development work on the encyclopedia? --Epipelagic (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• I agree and in fact, if Bbb23 is correct then I could have been blocked several times at every article that I've ever improved, as I often make more than 3 changes to an article in one editing session. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Some admins feel entitled to block after only one "revert". It comes down to the whim of the individual admin. There is no centralised control, just loose-cannon admins who believe they individually have personal entitlements to arbitrarily decide policy when it comes to blocking content builders. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've opened an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#Does Change = Revert?. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Here are the four consolidated consecutive edits that Bbb23 claims I violated 3RR by making: 1st series, 2nd series, 3rd series, and 4th series. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

  I don't know about 3RR, but I certainly see edit-warring there. 3RR isn't the only rule under which someone can get blocked for edit-warring. --Carnildo (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thought you should know

Some people are pretty upset with the Ryan Kaldari situation [3]. Just a heads up. Hell might be other people (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

So much so that they got pissed when called out for casting aspersions. Resolute 17:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

B does not logically flow from A. The edit summary of motivation is pretty self-explanatory DIFF. And it's a content creator down the toilet as a result of these latest WMF shenanigans GRAPH. Brilliant. Carrite (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand how it is "WMF shenanigans" - an employee made a single (right?) sockpuppeting edit and ended up resigning his admin bit when caught. I hardly think that counts as "WMF" shenanigans. It's a mistake - a real one, a serious one - by an employee, and what happens next needs to be between him and his immediate boss(es). I don't see any reason for anyone to retire over it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Who's responsible for the behaviour of WMF employees if not the WMF? Why is there no recognition that his behaviour (and I'm not just talking about his socking) reflects very badly on the WMF? Eric Corbett 23:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

No, every person's behavior is their own responsibility. The same applies to employees of Walmart, Microsoft, General Motors and so on; it's not the company's job to babysit the employees. If they make inappropriate edits, or engage in any other unwanted behavior (on- or off- wiki), don't blame it on their superiors. -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

You obviously aren't aware of the series of prosecutions that have resulted from the allegations of sexual abuse at the BBC for instance. The BBC is culpable because it failed to act when informed about the abuses, just as the WMF is now. Eric Corbett 02:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you have inadvertantly answered your own question. There is a very justified anger and prosecutions have resulted from allegations of sexual abuse at the BBC. That's a very far different thing from a single edit as a sockpuppet which has been apologized for.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems like you haven't been keeping up. Are you aware of snuffster? Eric Corbett 04:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@Jimbo: There is a very large additional factor in addition to what is visible here. The OP links to a user page with a "retired" banner. This version of their talk shows the reason—an admin tells the user that they will be blocked if they reinstate a claim of "obsessions with dead-kid-porn". A link to an image claiming to show the website responsible for that claim was earlier posted here, see my request here (permalink). Johnuniq (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a very justified reason to block someone because it was an outrageous allegation of a type that we don't allow on-wiki. And an allegation that, as far as I can tell, is entirely fanciful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Fine, but "fanciful" may not be warranted; see ANI (permalink) for the comment dated "10:42, 8 March 2014". Johnuniq (talk) 04:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Fanciful" is most definitely not warranted, and anyone in any doubt ought to check out Kaldari's snuffster web site. Eric Corbett 05:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It is as if the two of you are deliberately ignoring what is written in his comment. There is nothing there to substantiate - even remotely - a charge of "obsessions with dead-kid-porn". You should both be ashamed of yourself and I remind you of WP:NPA. To be clear, I think the website looked pretty stupid and offensive - a bad joke. But someone creating a bad joke several years ago, and other users making it worse, does not justify allegations that border on allegations of pedophilia. There is no need for such dramatics.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It's rather as if you have once again stuck your head in the sand, but that's just your way I guess. Eric Corbett 05:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The word "porn" was used metaphorically, as in "pornography of death". The issue is that Eric Corbett was falsely accused of "publicly belittling the suicide of a Wikipedian" (diff) by someone who runs a website dedicated to belittling the murder of children. Off-wiki stuff is rightfully ignored in general, but the issue should not be characterized as merely "from a single edit as a sockpuppet". Johnuniq (talk) 06:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

When making accusations, it's important to be accurate. Employing terms "metaphorically" doesn't help with that. Nor does describing a website as "dedicated to belittling the murder of children" when the website was quite clearly not set up for that purpose. The website was later used for belittling the murder of children; much like many other unpleasant websites that exist on the internet and that various Wikipedia people have been involved in. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Motions for community sanctions against Kaldari are more appropriate for ANI than here on Jimbo's talk page. Motions for WMF to part ways with Kaldari are better discussed with WMF than Jimmy since Jimmy is a board member. I suggest taking complaints to Gayle. I don't expect Gayle to comment about Kaldari's specific situation but I hope she will listen and respond to general questions about expectations for WMF employees. I don't think anything more should be said here and suggest that Jimbo close this discussion. Further discussion belongs at ANI or with Gayle. --Pine^✉ 05:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

  Why have you taken it upon yourself to speak for Jimbo? Is he unable to speak for himself? Eric Corbett 05:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I made 2 statements that I no longer want to contribute to Wikipedia. I'm not happy about the smearing of Eric Corbett by someone who was acting in a devious, underhand and hypocritical fashion, particularly as that person's wages are built in part on my contributions to Wikipedia. However, I do not wish to become the "poster child" of this dispute. My edit in which I said the correct place to take concerns is arbcom, not a noticeboard, was - despite georgewilliamherbert's interpretation - made in good faith and went out of it's way to mention no names. @arbcom will note that I myself did not email them: as distasteful as the site in question is, my concern is the sheer hypocrisy it demonstrated. I won't reply to any further comment and would appreciate being left to {{retire}}. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 10:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The core issue here is whether the following should be de facto Wikipedia policy: in order to be an admin, developer, or employee of Wikipedia, you must never have posted potentially objectionable content, nor have permitted it to be posted on any site you administer. If that's what people really want, maybe we can add it to the "Five Pillars" policy beside an image of Joseph McCarthy. Wikipedia would not be a democracy, an anarchy, or a bureaucracy, but a cyberbullocracy.

That said, I also acknowledge that "dead kid porn" is an extreme rhetorical excess, a personal attack and a continuing instance of "opposition research" per WP:OUTING but not a W:CHILDPROTECT issue (I disagree with banning discussion of child protection issues anyway). Punishing people for raising the issue is a very poor substitute for being clear that we support people's right to be secure from discrimination based on their outside writings. If we stand strong on that, people won't bother to raise such issues. Wnt (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• "Dead kid porn" is indeed rhetorical excess. "Tasteless attempts at comedy involving child sexual abuse and murder" would be accurate. And it's not sanctionable on-wiki, per BADSITES. I stand by my statement that this is a "WMF" issue, whether they want it to be or not. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

And my point is that it shouldn't be sanctionable off-wiki either. We're talking about whether people have the right to decide what they think is amusing, or have to be told when to laugh and when not to laugh by some supra-governmental agency. When good people fought against McCarthyism, they stood up for the right of people to have real political beliefs in Communism at a time when Russia was the site of tremendous abuses and torture and tens of millions of people dead, and pointing thousands, then tens of thousands of nuclear weapons at the United States. That was a tough test of freedom of speech for them, and we applaud them for, eventually, learning to believe in it. Are we going to fail the same test because some people aren't amused over some web banter? Really???

When people try to track down and penalize people for anything they've ever said on the Internet, they're arguing for an Internet where everything you say is part of your resume. It is a place where the worst snoopers and busybodies set themselves up as princes, with GCHQ reigning emperor over them all. I don't just call that model a "cyberbullocracy" because it's ruled by cyberbullies, but because it is a place where the promise of the Internet - a place where you can chat with your friends, exchange mail, work collaboratively on innovative ideas - is all a bunch of cyber bull. You might pass the Turing test chatting with your friends online like that, but only if one of their kind of "human", a soulless and well-programmed corporate appendage, is grading the test. Pushing resumes back and forth with your networking partners isn't conversation to the rest of us! I suppose some paid editors edit Wikipedia with such composure - are they the only ones fit to be in charge of anything? Wnt (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be a very nuanced view of the situation. Ryan Kaldari hosted a site for 10 years that was purposefully designed to be incredibly vile. He knew what he was hosting which is shown by his participation in the comment sections of many of the pages. I am ashamed that my donations employ someone who thinks that mocking the murder of a child is fine online joke fodder. I'm quite surprised and disappointed that you seek to minimize this 'beyond the pale' behavior as some kind of 'boys will be boys' shenanigans. Imagine what the parents would have felt had they stumbled on that page? Hell might be other people (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

We all owe Death a visit, so we are all entitled to mock if we please. I fully support the right of sites like Bestgore.com to post as they wish; sometimes - as in the case that site was prosecuted for - it actually helps to solve the crime. So certainly I hold such a tame and modest competitor as Kaldari's within the inalienable rights of any person. Now you could claim that by agitating against Kaldari's employment that you are not violating his rights, but that rings doubly hollow. First, because, as with the original McCarthyism, there is no visible boundary of intent between a literal legal action and an effort simply to drive someone out of employment and obtain some kind of abject surrender by force, and second, because our society should do far more to uphold a right of employment, both by progressive social policy that provides economic rewards to hire all available labor (tax structure) until such discrimination is rare due to the scarcity of quality labor, and at least in the interim by specific safeguards against unreasonable discrimination based on race, sexual favors, or exercise of democratic rights.

We know full well that family members can be deeply offended by trolls like the Westboro Baptist Church. But the way to deal with that is not to censor them all, nor to give some a license to offend based on where they work or how they protest. (Though I feel funeral homes should be entitled to parade permits that give them more exclusivity than they sometimes have by law) And certainly I am not going to stand up for the right of a despicable individual like Phelps with a profit motive, while abandoning a good Wikipedia volunteer with a sense of humor you happen to disagree with! Because I do believe in freedom of speech, I can't even condone the resort to laws in some jurisdictions that might now (coin toss) prosecute people at Wikipediocracy for acting together to try to get Kaldari fired. This leaves only one philosophical option: to urge people to stop the cyberbullying directly by denying it the booty it came for. If that means some people get offended and leave Wikipedia, so be it.

I find it ironic, and all too typical, that this whole mess started with someone posting a message about being understanding and opposing bullying. I imagine many a school program against the practice similarly ends bloody. But now that the fight is fully underway, there can be only one acceptable outcome: showing that understanding. Wnt (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to wrap my head around the (tortured) analogy between the state-sanctioned persecution of political beliefs and associations with the statement of fact that their employee Kaldari's public tastes and proclivities are matter for WMF to deal with or not deal with, at their pleasure. Look, Jimmy Wales likes South Park, I like South Park, maybe you like South Park. Expressing the political views of South Park in something like the Private Manning naming debate was deemed sanctionable — or close to it — by the legal scholars and official guardians of public morality at ArbCom. Does that mean he or I or anyone should be sanctioned for having a taste in humor a bit rougher or cruder than "normal"? No. But the fact is, that site is out there. The fact is, it was Kaldari's creation. The fact is, Kaldari is a WMF employee. The fact is, there are people who are bothered by that. Good luck, WMF. That's all. Carrite (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that analogy is your forte.

Reading your text makes me wonder if you are inebriated while posting.

Ryan Kaldari is partially supported by my donations. I cannot believe that this level of unprofessional behavior is actively supported by the WMF. I find his continued employment by a beloved charity frankly horrifying. I will not donate further. I am certain that I am not alone in this regard. Do as you will. Hell might be other people (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

HMOP: With 25 total contributions about Wikipedia process, most of them here, I think you've been through with Wikipedia, or them with you, for some time. And I assume your threat to "stop contributing" applies to every employee the diligent folks at that blog can research and try to dig stuff up about. Hmmmm - giving up donations from a banned user on one hand, or instituting a rigorous loyalty code on every administrative volunteer and employee for them to work and play, not just now and in the future but throughout all their past, according to your personal law? Get lost.

P.S. by restoring the comment about Jon-Benet Ramsay, how are you different from Kaldari? (Answer: he allowed it to be posted in a private forum; you chose to restore it to a public forum) That doesn't mean it isn't funny, though. Wnt (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I have donated every year for 6 years. I am not a banned user.

Your speculation is as accurate as your analogies. As I said, I do not think I am alone in being disgusted by these events.

Are you some sort of official spokesperson here on Jimbo Wales' talk page?

Are you a WMF employee, by chance? Hell might be other people (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's quite clear that Wnt is not a WMF employee. Personally, I think Wnt is a twit, and the only sensible thing he's said is this; "there is no visible boundary of intent between a literal legal action and an effort simply to drive someone out of employment and obtain some kind of abject surrender by force".

The more ugly Encyclopedia Dramatica groupies talk about Encyclopedia Dramatica style comeback against what Encyclopedia Dramatica friends of theirs consider unacceptable... the more ridiculous the protestations look. Let's have User:Tarc and User:Alison come right out here and say which things they condemn on Encyclopedia Dramatica. The same things as were done on the site that Kaldari was supposedly paying for? Let's hear it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to take cuts. What are you fucking dragging Alison into this for? What has she ever been on or off wiki other than totally professional? That's a really nasty move and I urge you to redact it. Carrite (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You sound angry, Carrite, which is unusual for you. I'm surprised. Are you saying that Alison never had any connection with the Encyclopedia Dramatic website? That's not a really nasty move on my part. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry broheim, but I'm going to have to topple these carefully-erected strawmen of yours; I withdrew from the likes of WR, WO, ED, and even /b/ last fall or thereabouts. It's easy to be ugly to people who (whom? I never know when to use that) you do not know via the internet, while it's much harder to be decent. Know what I'd like to see? I'd like Ryan Kaldari to pay a visit to John Ramsey, and I'd like for there to be a printout of the part of that snuffster website that mocked his daughter JonBonet. I'd like Mr. Kaldari to read that page out load to Mr. Ramsey. Do you think that will happen, User:Demiurge1000 ? Can he look a man in the face and ridicule his dead daughter? Being a sick human being isn't illegal, I get that, but it is probably about time to realize that the Wild West days of the internets are fading fast. Some blokes may get to ride into the sunset with at least a shred of dignity left, while others like dear Kaldari get shoved from the moving train. You reap what you sow. Tarc (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Last fall, eh? Would you like to pay a similar visit to the victims of the websites from which you've now "withdrawn"? Can you be a man and apologise for what you did in the past? Or are you all too quick to want to focus on someone who can be "shoved from the moving train", while you ride into the sunset - as you put it. Why did it take you so long? Why don't you have apologies to make? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I did apologize to several people whom I had bad interactions with, including someone you have also behaved vilely and despicably towards, namely Mbz1. It is unfortunate that you will likely never do right by her, given the resounding lack of ethical fiber you have displayed in this thread by acting like Kaldari's enabler and apologist. So please, my dear Demiurge1000, don't ever think you have the standing to call me out on any act I may have done in my past; I'm not answerable to the likes of you, as your own moral standing has been lying down for years. Tarc (talk) 01:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually that is exactly why I called you out for your hypocrisy on this. You and yours like to club together to pretend moral outrage based on precisely the same things that you spent years finding oh-so-funny. Please do stand in front of the victims and make your apologies. Please do actually make that effort. I would like to see it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, I do not answer to people who are beneath me. Next time, my dear Demiurge, keep my name out of your mouth. I had no horse in this particular talk page until you unwisely pinged me. Now you know better. Tarc (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I pinged you (and another) because I thought, in between your wild screechings elsewhere, you might really have the grace to admit that you did indeed engage in questionable behaviour in the past, and were willing to make amends. Not willing to scream about the supposed misdeeds of others. All too familiar. If you didn't want to be mentioned, you should've kept your mouth firmly shut. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Learn to read, Demiwit; I said I did apologize to people that I had wronged in the past. Do let me know when your balls drop enough for you to man up and apologize to Mbz and others that YOU have done wrong by. Tarc (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Back to your old ways, eh Tarc? Carry on. You're seen for what you are. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

After being dragged through the media for decades as notorious almost-alleged killers, and subjected to defamation suits for suggesting other people might have done it, I don't think the Ramsays would be shocked by a page like that. I would bet money that they would maintain their composure, no matter what version of events is true. Wnt (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I take it you aren't a parent? To borrow a phrase from the Blues Brothers, Mr. Kaldari would find it difficult to eat corn on the cob due to the lack of teeth. Tarc (talk) 01:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you're coming too close to defaming the Ramsays by suggesting that they are given to uncontrollable violence, when I am sure they have seen just about everything on the Internet about the girl already. Besides, you're suggesting an in-person confrontation that I'm sure Kaldari would never seek in the first place, over things he never apparently wrote in the first place. Wnt (talk) 01:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Wnt, follow the misattributed-to-Mark-Twain's advice about fools, please. Tarc (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Perhaps they have a more "nuanced" view (I didn't notice their comments but I assume they can want to have one site with one set of rules and another with another!) - but regardless, I support the right of all three admins to do anything that they could if they participated in no other site than Wikipedia. Even to be wrong. We must not compromise that principle. Wnt (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is degenerating rapidly. The last thing we need here is for a handful of editors to use this sad situation to feud or try to score debating points. Even if you sincerely don't mean it that way, that is how the last couple of hours of this thread read to me, and I am sure to others. Please stop. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes I want to score debating points. If we let people drum out a WMF employee over personal postings on an unrelated site, after the sad precedents from before, and with the continuing threats against other admins here of doing the same thing, then it's already a "behavioral policy" that Wikipedia is not a place that anyone can edit, only a place where certain people who have never said anything that certain other people don't like can edit. A fundamental change of direction like that needs to be debated.

Now, if you want to rule out the conversation because rejection of WP:BADSITES is settled policy, and because dwelling on these editors' private activities is impermissible opposition research that cannot lead to a useful process, that I can accept, even applaud, but not a "neutral" rejection of the discussion. Wnt (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Restoring edit

I erroneously removed the following edit, believing it repeated information obtained through an an attempted outing. In compromise, to forgo edit warring, I agreed to reinstate the edit myself, if the suppression was declined. I'd like to thank Hell might be other people for the understanding he or she showed, in letting this run its course, for abundant caution; and to hopefully accept my apologizes for having erred regarding the matter. The edit, including its timestamp follows.—John Cline (talk) 08:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC):

• I know this is distasteful, but what he hosted is well beyond the pale. [4] I thought you should know what was being discussed. Hell might be other people (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

  Jimbo, if instead of murdered children that site featured let's say deceased Wikipedians, would have you also dismissed it as just "a bad joke"?71.198.251.187 (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

  A rather good question. Much discussion was had recently regarding the Ukrainian Wikipedian who tragically lost his life in that nation's recent unrest. Would a website mocking him, and others in the project's WP:RIP members be written off as "personal postings on an unrelated site". Tarc (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Archives

Jimbo, your talk page seems to have two indexes to its archives, and two archive search buttons. The second index, with all the dates, is tedious to scroll past in mobile view and could usefully be hidden. I wonder whether you or a hepful talkpage stalker could tidy this up? Thanks.PamD 07:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting: I switched to desktop view (unpleasant on a small smartphone) to add new section to talk page, which seems impossible in mobile view, and the dates are hidden on the page. So it's another glitch in mobile view. PamD 07:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Move archive list into talk-subpage: I agree the list index of talk-page archives has become tedious text, which probably overwhelms new users reading this page. Also, beyond 50 entries in a list, it becomes a matter of wp:data hoarding of talk-page file names. I suggest moving the archive index into a talk-page subpage (perhaps: /archive_list), and then link that subpage for users who want to read all the archive page names. Because Jimbo welcomes many new users to post here, we should make this page simpler and more-welcoming for any new readers. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia donors and their related articles.

You might be interested in some of the 100+ responses to the Slashdot posting on the "bright line" of COI editing and Wikipedia's donor-related articles. Bielle (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)