User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 112

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Collaboration, interaction, understanding, and bridging gaps

Hi Jimbo and watchers! A short while back I posted here on the subject of Wikipedia being a honey trap for Autism-spectrum (including Asperger's) editors, and how we should bear this in mind as simple differences in thought-processing and language-processing can cause misunderstandings even when both / all parties are acting in the best of good faith. Following on from this (and from promptings from a few other editors!) I wrote this essay.

Anyone interesting in bridging this gap might also want to sign up to the interaction pact, and maybe add the userbox alongside to their user page with {{User:ThatPeskyCommoner/Userboxes/APact}} to help raise awareness. Pesky (talk) 04:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding: as a community, we need to be aware of the adverse effects of Mentalism (discrimination) just as much as those of racism, sexism, ageism, and all the other "isms". Pesky (talk) 07:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure any such problems will go away once DSM-5 comes out :) I think this may be at the basis of a major problem with articles - their accessibility and suitableness for reading on an internet device. We really need something saying more than just Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, unfortunately that just gets editors cramming information in. They consider things like size limits as restrictions on their shovelling yet more important information in rather than as guidelines to help them produce something better for the reader. I believe we should also have an aim to be read and to inform. Dmcq (talk) 09:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
We agree always to try hard to remember that neurotypical editors really can get "lost" or corrupted "data files"; what on earth does that mean? --Errant (chat!) 09:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes that wording is a little unusual; I'm not sure what it means. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
It's a metaphor. It is not unusual if you read the essay it is referring to first. Viriditas (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I got the "data files" - the significance of "lost" is, umm, lost on me :) unless it is a copyedit error and the correct meaning is lost or corrupted "data files". As an aside, I showed this to a diagnosed aspergers friend and he said (quote) "Ugh, I hate all the nicey-nicey just because I'm an aspie. It's degrading". Just adding a contrary viewpoint. --Errant (chat!) 13:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The wording of policy should be formulated to make it accessible and clear to everyone. This is a concept called universal design, it means that rather than designing for the average user, you design for people with differing native languages, genders, racial and ethnic backgrounds, abilities, and disabilities.

I feel the target should be ALL editors, rather than the Average editor. I think naming or defining the interactions between the the mutants and the humans is not the precision path, I love and respect my Auntie's intentions here, but peaceful people do not draw up treaties or talk of peace. People who speak of peace are those who go to war. To say "we should include everyone" is to speak with a single voice. But to say "we should have a pact between the groups" or to say "we should have a treaty" is to draw lines between the groups. If I tell my friend "I like you even though you have brown eyes. I think there is nothing wrong with having brown eyes" and tell each of my friends the same thing, it's reverse psychology. They think I hate people with brown eyes. "Include everyone" contains no reverse psychology dynamic. This is the path to unity. Penyulap 16:58, 25 Jul 2012 (UTC)

@Errant: the "lost" data files are just that - memories which either never got saved, or have somehow been deleted! It can be hard for aspies and auties to get a grip on the fact that NT's really can "not remember" stuff. Or remember it wrongly. I don't think we should be "nicey nicey", either; but I also don't think any of us should be equating high-functioning autism-spectrum people as "disabled" or "less competent", or any of that stuff. It's just a different method of processing, with emphasis on data-handling and not on "people-stuff". @Pen: I'm sure we need something to remind ourselves that we A-spectrum people need to make allwoances for the comparative dysfunctionality of NTs in some areas; and vice versa. There's an awful lot of misunderstanding just because each type doesn't have any personal first-hand knowledge of the operating system of the other type. Pesky (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Hmm; memory is only one of many features of people on the autism spectrum. I know very many people with such classifications who have worse memory than I do (and mine is pretty bad). Also; I'd suggest that a pact & essay that comments on certain people on the autism spectrum having difficulty with unclear, imprecise, or ambiguous language probably shouldn't be using an unclear sentence immediately afterward ;) One of the key things about Autism is that it manifests in many very different ways - if we are talking about accommodating different viewpoints, and adopting clarity in our policies, procedures and interactions, then let's do so. I'd certainly benefit from that :) People are idiosyncratic; many of us here could probably be shown to display autistic traits. But equally many of us are not. I'm cautious about making such a big deal over it - just as I am cautious about making a big deal over any minority. It usually just ends up enforcing bias and dislike more than anything else. --Errant (chat!) 19:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
p.s. Pesky; the point I was making r.e. that sentence is that because "lost" and "data files" are quoted a basic reading of that sentence suggest them as two different points - or to put it another way why is "lost" quoted, but not corrupted? --Errant (chat!) 19:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Heh! OK, so I'm not perfect; and what I write isn't always perfect either! Yes, I know that memory isn't always the distinguishing feature; however, I have noticed that, in WikiLand, it seems to be the one which causes the biggest misunderstandings-of-NT's, for A-spectrum people who do have the memory thing. If you can remember, for example, every discussion, what everyone said, on a talk page about a subject for the last two years, and if that's totally natural for you, then when other people misremember stuff, or just don't remember at all, then it can really seem as though they're deliberately misrepresenting things, or distorting things, or just plain lying about it "to fool people". That's a big issue here. In the same way as NT's can think / say "How can you possibly not understand what I said? You're just being disruptive!", A-spectrummers can think / say "How can you possibly not remember that stuff? You're just being disruptive!" In Wikipedia, that's the one which seems to cause the challenges in mutual understanding.

P.S. I removed those superfluous quotes :o) In Real Life™, things are a little different, because we're dealing with real-world differences. I have to say that, when it comes to Real Life™, I tend to feel sorry for neurotypicals because of what they miss out on. When I'm out in the wilderness (for want of a better word) with a neurotypical, and we pause to look at the beautiful view, the NT sees a beautiful view, or a lovely landscape. I see everything. The deer hiding still and silent under the trees, the lark's nest, the rabbit frozen into immobility under the bramble ten feet away, the adder basking but watchful, with head raised to see whether it needs to move out of our way, the otter on the riverbank watching us, the tiny wild orchid which my companion almost stepped on ... the list is endless. And NT's miss 90% of it. On an intellectual level, we A-spectrum people know all too well what NT's have that we don't, mainly because we're constantly belittled and berated for not having it. But, unless they've actually studied us, they don't have, even on an intellectual level, any appreciation of what we have that they don't ... because nobody attacks them for not having it. Pesky (talk) 05:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been wracking my brains to try and think of a parallel which might give some insight for NT's on A-spectrum processing. It's a bit as if all the NTs are in a stimulus-free padded cell. If you're surrounded by really interesting stuff, which you only have to look and listen and sniff and touch and taste to enjoy, why on earth would you choose instead to focus only on your companion, shutting out all that amazing stuff, and gossip about your next door neighbours? You could do that just as well in a padded cell ... Pesky (talk) 08:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
All of the traits you mention are simply human traits - not really linked to Autism. I, for example am highly observant. A friend who has Aspergers is one of the least observant people I know :) As best I understand it; Autism, and related problems, revolves around problems with "information processing". An A-Spectrum person is, to varying degrees, unable to process, filter or comprehend the information they receive. I just refreshed my memory from a book on my shelves as I recall an analogy similar to the one you make; the writer mentions two people stood in a beautiful field - the neuro-typical person has masses of sensory information available, but are able to focus on, say, enjoying the sunset or watching a single butterfly in flight. This particular A-Spectrum person is unable to focus on any one thing in the same way. It specifically points out that your analogy, which suggest the NT person is looking at the same scene through a fuzzy lense (i.e. unable to see all the detail) is an incorrect explanation of the difference. Having an eidetic memory is not particularly a feature of ASD (indeed - it is as prevalent in A-Spectrum individuals as it is in NT individuals); we simply happen to notice this in A-Spectrum individuals (for various reasons). I've regularly been in situations such as you mention; where I've wondered how on earth someone could have forgotten that last week we had a massive row about something. Or that they said XYZ - and so forth. I think what I am aiming at is that almost all of the problems you highlight are not really about having an ASD, but are simply common points of confusion amongst all of us. I think pitching it as you have risks several things; creating yet another us vs. them situation, unfairly alienating NT editors with these attributes or (worse) labelling them as "probably Autistic". --Errant (chat!) 09:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there is a huge amount of overlap in all sorts of areas. And I always feel it's really important to remember that all of us are somewhere on the continuum – it's not like an on/off switch, at all. It's just that, after quite a while looking at interactions and where process-misunderstandings occur, the language / literal / precision thing and the data-storage thing seem to be the ones most likely to cause problems here in Wikipedia. The other Wikipedia-relevant stuff, I've covered a bit more in the essay. Yes, sure, anyone can have glitches in any area of that stuff, but those are the ones which always leap out at me when I'm looking at interactions between people whom I know are HFA or A-spectrum (or in that area of the scale, etc.) and those who I don't know are / aren't but seem most likely not to be. What I'm really trying to get to is that people (all people) should really remember that the idea is that we're supposed to be working together, despite our differences ... and that, actually, our best bet is to make the best use of the various talents which we find in all our many and varied WikiColleagues, rather than knocking anyone for what they don't have. Pesky (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Here are two meta-links to related information.
Wavelength (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
See Inattentional blindness#External links (version of 11:38, 14 July 2012).
Wavelength (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Cool links! (Sorry, I should have said something earlier about those!) Pesky (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

While admiring the spirit of Pesky's initiative and essay, as well as her dedicated dispute resolution work, I have to admit a reluctance to sign up to a "pact" which I don't currently feel I really understand. I ask myself what I'm letting myself in for here... There's always a balance to be struck, imo, between individual users and the project. What happens if I feel a problematic user somewhere on the spectrum really isn't going to contribute constructively and should be politely asked to leave. Would I be betraying the pact? I think I'd feel more comfortable with a userbox expressing (somehow) sensitivity to the issues, rather than an apparently binding, abstract commitment. Btw, I do recognize the potential significant contributions by unlikely people (autism apart), including some that are quite mind-boggling [1]. —MistyMorn (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Autism Awareness Ribbon.png This user supports Autism and Asperger's awareness.

:Aaah, the essay does point out that there are some people who just don't belong in here! And that being on the autism spectrum doesn't give anyone carte blanche to be a dick as well ... so if someone really doesn't belong, asking them to leave isn't a violation of the pact. The pact is just about remembering that we (all) have our differences, and focussing on some of the major differences between A-spectrum and NT editors which seem to affect WikiLife in particular, and just agreeing to remember that those differences in and of themselves don;t mean that "the other type" is stupid, etc. Of course one can be stupid, and / or a dick, and / or disruptive, no matter whether one's NT, A-spectrum, or anything else. One can alternatively be extremely valuable. Try this userbox {{User:UBX/AAAwareness}} if you like it. Pesky (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Pesky - I like the AA Awareness userbox and have happily added it to my page. —MistyMorn (talk) 10:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
This might be interesting to A-spectrum (and maybe NT) editors. Pesky (talk) 04:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Harassment of mentally sick Wikipedians

Johnny Vaughan

Daughter moved to tears by wikipedia article which exposes the truth..Dr. Blofeld 16:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It has never been any great secret that Johnny Vaughan spent time in prison over a drug offence. This has been in numerous reliable sources, and Wikipedia is only repeating what the sources say, such as Vaughan's interview in the Daily Telegraph.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh I know, wikipedia is right to cover it, but hard for somebody to learn about their dad nonetheless. It must make it incredibly hard to discipline a child though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not like a rerun of the Daniela Georgieva deletion debate. Wikipedia articles have to mention significant controversies. The Daily Mail seems to be placing the blame on Wikipedia for this, but it has been in many showbiz bios of Vaughan. The problem is that a Wikipedia BLP article is usually the first search result for a living person's name.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
No, the problem is that the majority of the section "Life and career" is devoted to discussing his arrest for allegedly trying to sell drugs. That's not acceptable. Further, a single drug arrest (based on what sounds like entrapment) is not a "significant controversy" but rather a sensationalized account of an arrest when he was 21. It's clearly undue weight. Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I like lisa's approach to journalism, take all of society's ills, all family problems today, the drug addicted capitalist government, a guy who is struggling to make up for mistakes, roll everything into a twit sized headline and shove it up wiki's butt. Yes, great aim, I've long thought Jimbo was behind that whole Fukushima thing, I should write to this lisa and see what we can do to expose him. Penyulap 08:42, 28 Jul 2012 (UTC)
Vaughan was found guilty and sentenced to four years in prison, serving two; there is no WP:ALLEGED. Mentioning past criminal convictions is a sensitive area for BLPs, but since Vaughan discussed the incident in a 2008 newspaper interview and it is common knowledge anyway, there is no obvious bar to mentioning it. The Mail has packaged the story as though all of this was Wikipedia's fault, which is disappointing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you not understand the concept of undue weight? Here is an example of BBC News giving the issue due and proper weight. Viriditas (talk) 11:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Compare also the way we deal with Stephen Fry's crime and prison time. Though, no matter how thoughtfully we dealt with Vaughan's history, it would still have been a difficult way for the child to find out about it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not going to stop anyone from trimming the material in the Vaughan article. However, as with Stephen Fry's conviction (or David Dickinson) there is no great secret in their official biogs that they were in prison at one point. The point that I have been try to make all along is that the Mail tried to bash Wikipedia for "revealing" something about Johnny Vaughan that was never a secret in the first place.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Local Ombudsman Committee?

I'm thinking out loud right now, but we currently have the following committees that are consistent with any large organization:

  • A mediation committee that facilitates conflict resolution among disagreeing parties.
  • An arbitration committee that makes binding and enforceable resolutions to help resolve disputes.

The WMF has its own ombudsman commission to investigate issues and complaint regarding CheckUser and Oversight. But I was wondering: perhaps we (the English Wikipedia) could have our own local Ombudsman Committee that would similarly investigate issues and complaints regarding CheckUser and Oversight (just as the Audit Subcommittee already does), but it would also have the power to investigate issues and complaints regarding individual editors as well as administrators and their actions.

  • Pros:
    • This would allow for the community a specific venue to handle complaints about misconduct, including admin misconduct, which a lot of people are looking at.
    • This would also leave the Arbitration Committee to specifically handle more specific content disputes, sanctions, etc.
  • Cons:
    • Do we really need another committee? It may more resemble bureaucratic creep.
    • We may be introducing unnecessary redundancy with what the Arbitration Committee currently does.

Anyways, I'm just thinking this out loud. Any thoughts? --MuZemike 00:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a similar discussion taking place here, perhaps you would like to weigh-in there with your thoughts MuZemike. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I've expressed my partial support for the relevant proposal, but it's partial because my proposal is more far-reaching than what the existing proposal is. --MuZemike 07:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Gabe linked what I was going to link to as well. Several of us have been talking about this for some time in different venues, and we have adopted the concern at WP:WER. I have no idea what the final answer should be, and I share your concerns about creep, but there is a real need for something to fill the void as we rapidly expand in every direction. I think it is exceedingly important that admins and non-admins equally share in developing this, to help build stronger bonds between us all here. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 12:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

COI+ certification proposal

I've thought of an idea that might break our current logjam with paid editing. I'd love your sincere feedback and opinion.

Feel free to circulate this to anyone you think should know about it, but please recognize that it hasn't agreed upon by either PR organizations or WikiProjects or the wider community. It's also just a draft, so any/many changes can still be made. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

This looks great. I hope it gets buy-in from the CREWE professionals. (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

help with red tape

I am a doctor. I do not want to get involved in red tape or a long bureaucratic process so please do not ask me to do this and that.

A few years ago, I posted a few comments, mostly about medical stuff. Then I made the mistake about commenting about a politician's health by giving a medical opinion. Some administrator falsely declared I was not a doctor and banned me by calling me the Wikipedia equivalent of being a communist (sock).

This makes Wikipedia look childish and unjust. A possible solution would be for you to create a user acct for me and put a note that I should not be banned unless I post something not permitted. If the new acct is banned using an excuse and not reviewed by you, that person doing so will be banned.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Nobody else can create an account for you, but nothing prevents you from creating one. If you do, nobody will connect it with things that happened years ago unless you misbehave with the new account. It isn't reasonable for you to ask for privileges such as immunity from blocking that are not granted to even the most solidly established editors. Looie496 (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Yup. Create a new account on the same basis as anyone else. Expect to be treated the same way as anyone else, and we will treat you the same way as anyone else. We won't know you from anyone else. Is there anything fairer than that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

In essence, you are telling me to break the rules and sneak under the ban. This is unethical. If two administrators give me the ok and agree to help me if I am picked on or if Mr. Wales gives me the ok then I will do what Andy instructs me to do. Mr. Wales, would you kindly respond. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 16:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I suppose we were suggesting that you 'sneak under the ban', but administrators won't be able to 'give you the OK' unless you let them know what your previous account was - at which point the decision will clearly depend on the circumstances of the block. By and large though, we aren't overconcerned with what went on in the distant past, and starting a new account while still technically banned isn't likely to be a problem unless there are new issues with the new account. As an alternative, you could ask for the existing ban to be lifted. However, once again, you aren't going to get preferential treatment - admins should help anyone who 'gets picked on'. As for Jimbo responding himself, that is up to him, but I honestly can't see him saying anything different. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. may find that WP:IAR bears directly on the ethics of the situation. (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
From's comment, "...banned me by calling me the Wikipedia equivalent of being a communist (sock)", it looks like the ban was for sockpuppetry. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
If the accusation was false, then WP:IAR and WP:CLEANSTART apply. If actual sockpuppetry was involved, then WP:STANDARDOFFER also applies. (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Given the concerns expressed, an administrator or Jimbo should reaffirm that IAR and cleanstart applies. (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Then it looks like the next step for you is to contact an administrator, or maybe there is one who is following this discussion and is willing to come forward and help. In any case, good luck. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

8.18...., your first post was so scrambled that it's unclear what happened or the what current status is. "Sockpuppet" means that you had two accounts or were accused of such. That would be a totally different reason than the one you described. Next, you said banning BY calling you a sock puppet. Calling you a sock puppet is an accusation, not a ban; are you sure that your account is actually banned? (unable to edit?) Next nobody gets banned for just giving a medical opinion. Accounts do get banned for being a scokpuppet, which, if true, would mean that you have another account and should just use that. North8000 (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It would help if everyone in this discussion got the distinction between blocking (revocation of an account's privileges) and banning (expulsion of a person from the community) right. Please read and learn our Project:Banning policy. Uncle G (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC regarding "verifiability, not truth" has just ended

FYI, a large RfC regarding "verifiability, not truth" has just ended and is awaiting closers' comments. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Update: The report of the closers has been posted and can be found at Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012 RfC/Closing statements. The result of the RfC has been implemented.[2] --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The land of Talk

Dear Jimbo,

I am a novice editor. Being novice, I recently run into trouble adding "pro" and "con" markers to other editors' posts on a discussion I initiated - where indeed I was the only "pro" to be found. After an hilarious visit to the ANI dungeon I posted a short piece on talk page protocol on its wall that I think you may find amusing. I have since then seen the light and am now completely reformed.

Kind regards, Yaniv256 (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You probably want WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:TALK, and especially WP:RD where questions about almost any subject short of medical or legal advice are allowed even when they don't lead directly to improvement of an article. (Don't tell anyone the secret that many articles have been improved far more by Reference Desk questions than discussions on their talk page, mostly because of the number of page views and the often quasi-competitive and always cooperative nature of reference desk regulars.) (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Alexa ranking RfC

Hi, Jimmy. I started an RfC regarding your earlier suggestion of using Quantcast ranking instead/besides Alexa's. Please have a look.--OsamaK (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


Is some Admin around who can revert and block this vandal? He seems to have evaded the bots. He's also vandalizing on Wikia. (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for making the effort to bring this to our attention. We have a special page for reporting blatant vandalism, WP:AIV. I just filed a report on that IP, so you don't need to do anything more about this case. I can't do anything about Wikia, though. Looie496 (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

frayed knights

frayed knights is going to be released for mac, but will it be released for linux too or not? Ada45woungjob (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, a video game we don't have an article on! Generally speaking you are more likely to get an answer to a question like this on the appropriate Reference desk -- in this case Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. But I'll save you the effort: the answer is no. Looie496 (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikiquote and the dead projects

Dear Jimmy Wales,

First of all, thank you. Thank you for having created Wikiquote who is a pleasant project. Then, I have to speak to you about what arrives regrettably on fr.wikiquote and on all the small dead projects, formerly active. Since the lock of fr.wikiquote, the project had in its new debuts a deep activity. Regrettably, in two hardly, its liveliness ran out. And now, it is the scyte, to be euphémiste. Nothing takes place there, pages are archaic, the contributions are rare, the left contributors, and the useless survivors. This is the way I thus kindly request you to make the charity for the project. If only a support of one some shape, and Wikiquotiens will be happy.

I thank you for the attention which you would grant to my request, it would be the proof of your benevolence to fr.wikiquote and all the small dead projects.

Please accept, Sir, my best regards in your to and big work.

Votre aimable et respectueux contributeur,

Morphypnos (answer) 20:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It might be me (I'm a little slow sometimes) but could you clarify a little what you are asking for? I'm not quite sure from the message what you want Jimbo to do and I'm not sure he would either. Not speaking for him of course just suggesting. Kumioko (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I know this query is about fr.wikiquote, but I would just like to say that I've been very impressed with the professionalism of the editors and admins over at en.wikiquote. Maybe they would be able to help this user out? Viriditas (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
This was Google-translated; I put it back in French and it made a lot more sense. I re-translated into English (quick and dirty, sorry it's so stiff), and I hope this makes more sense: (Keilana|Parlez ici 07:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC))
Dear Jimmy Wales,
First of all, I thank you. Thank you for creating Wikiquote, which is a nice project. However, I need to speak to you about what's unfortunately happened at fr.wikiquote and on all the formerly-active projects. Since fr.wikiquote was locked, the project saw in its new start profound activity. Unfortunately, in hardly any time, its liveliness drained away. Now, it's wikt:scyte [tr. note: slang for "shit"], to be euphemistic. Nothing happens there, the pages are all out of date, contributions are rare, contributors have left, and the ones left are useless. This is how I kindly request that you help the project. It only needs a certain kind of support to make the Wikiquotiens [tr. note: French Wikiquote editors] happy.
I thank you for paying attention to my request; it would prove your benevolence towards fr.wikiquote and all the other little dead projects.
Please accept, sir, my best regards for your work both small and large.
Your kind and respectful contributor,
That's pretty much what I understood of the first version. Still — what does "help" mean, or "support"? What could we do? (esp. people who don't speak French...) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Could it mean that Morphypnos is asking that the French Wikiquote be unlocked? Does anyone know how and under what conditions it was locked? (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can see, fr.wikiqoute is open for business, and active, although most contributions seem to be from our poster here. I too don't understand what Jimbo can do here. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I think he is pointing out that the number of contributors has died off and he is looking for something to help to invigorate the particular project. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it's a great question. My personal view is that we are unfortunately doing a disservice to a lot of smaller/dying/dead/struggling projects by not spinning them off into separate organizations. The Foundation is unable to do too many different things at the same time, and I think an argument can be made that Wikinews (for example) has languished from neglect as much as anything else. (The software continues to be optimized for writing an encyclopedia, not for writing news, or a dictionary, or a directory of quotes.) Let's take quotes as our example at the moment - it is not hard to imagine a much better software package for community-built quotes. (For example, automatic sorting/hiding based on whether a quote is fully confirmed in reliable sources or in the process of being checked. For example, easy and fluid tagging and cross-referencing by tags or keywords. The imagination runs wild and it sounds so fun to me!)
I think I am not the only one who wonders, from time to time, whether our half-hearted support for such projects is providing just enough weak "competition" for potential exciting new alternatives that we are actually not doing the best thing for free culture generally. I don't know if that is true or not - I just think it is not crazy to wonder about it, and if people at some projects decided that they'd like to move to another organization, I think there aren't many valid arguments against it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
In my mind, this is a question of core competencies. While the overall goal of contributing to free culture/media is noble, Wikimedia's focus has always been the encyclopedia. All of these exciting other experiments were launched when Wikimedia was young, and one has to wonder if it is worthwhile keeping them going. Commons and Wikisource both clearly support the encyclopedias, so are valuable to retain. But one has to honestly ask if there is much value in things like Wikinews and Wiktionary especially. Are we providing anything with either project that is superior to what can be found elsewhere? IMO, no. Wikiquote is an interesting bird though. I can see merits of it having a complimentary place alongside an encyclopedia, but as you wonder, are we treating it the way it needs to be successful? Resolute 18:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Scope of issues which affect the community

Hi Jimmy,

The Foundation recently outlined suggested lobbying priorities, including as the second of three such priorities issues which affect readers, editors, and the community. The examples given include intellectual property and the nature of charitable purposes. While those particular issues certainly do affect the community, it is not at all clear whether they are the most pressing such issues, or what "the nature of charitable purposes" entails. I would like to know, please, your personal opinion on the extent to which issues that may have a greater impact on readers, editors, and the community should be addressed by the Foundation, whether by lobbying or otherwise. In particular:

1. Drafts of the Funds Dissemination Committee process recommendation from March 2012 contemplated grants to individuals in some circumstances,[3] but that possibility has become considerably less prominent if not eliminated altogether in recent FDC plans.[4] To what extent do you think it is appropriate for the Foundation to compensate relatively impoverished long term prolific individual volunteers in good standing?

2. The peer reviewed economics literature pertaining to the position of the peak of the Laffer curve -- the optimum tax rate as a fraction of GDP maximizing government revenue and economic growth -- is deeply and bitterly bimodal,[5] with right-wing economists who have been dominant in United States policy making since the 1970s, but who constitute a relatively small minority (including Laffer himself) claiming the peak is below 20% without much substantial empirical support of their position, and the much larger majority of economists writing in peer reviewed journals claiming the peak is above 70%. As in most cases where the primary sources are bifurcated, the secondary sources are not, and in this case they almost universally side with the majority. Your background in futures trading might suggest that the steady decline of French bond rates since their Socialist supermajority's announcement of a 75% top tax bracket (similar to that of the U.S. in the 1950s and Sweden in the 1990s, both coincident with very rapid economic growth in those countries at those times) provides even stronger support for the secondary peer reviewed sources on the topic, from the free market which the minority claims to champion.[6] This generally obscure aspect of tax policy may very likely have more profound implications concerning the overall financial and general health of readers, editors, and the community than any other policy question. To what extent would it be appropriate for the Foundation to take a lobbying position on this issue? Is there a moral duty to explain to policy makers how Wikipedia's reliable source criteria would handle the bifurcated opinion on the issue?

3. How bad would extreme weather and related effects of global warming have to get before you would recommend that the Foundation seek to replace existing travel activities with teleconferencing and related technologies? I'm aware that the Foundation and its volunteers probably make better use of teleconferencing systems, including wikis, than most if not the vast majority of organizations. But how bad would things need to get before you would recommend looking for even more such use to displace some of the status quo travel utilization?

Thank you for considering these questions. (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait.... the Foundation did not lay out suggested lobbying priorities. James Forrester and I, in our PERSONAL capacities, gave a workshop at Wikimania. One of the early slides in that deck that you link to clearly says that (in fact, it's slide 1). Don't misconstrue what we did there. I find that intellectually dishonest. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 10:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion on page 9 and the admonishments on page 10 make those slides seem very much like an official position document, as does the abstract's discussion of "how we might want to make 'official' interactions and statements," and "what we can do to make certain that we as a movement expend appropriate resources." When someone speaks about their official duties, saying they are speaking in a personal capacity, do you think that disclaimer has any practical effect? My understanding is that it generally does not. I'm not sure exactly what you think is dishonest. In any case, the questions are just as valid and important no matter how official the slides are. (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you work, but I don't want to work there. Wow, such an intellectually stifling environment it must be where you get so little chance to voice a personal opinion in a professional context. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 14:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Where I work I'm allowed to express all of my personal opinions with the expectation that I am responsible for them whether they involve professional implications or impacts on society as a whole. I wouldn't have it any other way. (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Such detailed questions from an ip address always disappoint me. You are presumably someone who has been around for awhile, your questions pose absolutely no risk to you of any kind, and you have said nothing that would come close to being actually controversial in a way that would get you blocked or banned. As I'm sure you are aware, many or most people view such behavior (posting anonymously when clearly we would know who you are if you signed your name or username) as odd or "baiting" in some fashion. It makes me personally feel like you aren't willing to stand behind your answers and that you are hoping I'll say something that you can then take out of context in another venue.
Having said that, I can try to answer the questions as best I can, and unlike you - I'll sign my name to my answers.
1. Other than the phrase "relatively impoverished" which I think is irrelevant (we aren't a charity to support destitute writers, as honorable a goal as that may be, we are a charity to give away a free encyclopedia), I think that it can be fine for the Foundation to be involved in direct grants to individual community members in some circumstances. The criteria for that may include some needs-based assessment, but the goal shouldn't be to alleviate anyone's impoverishment per se. This is a subtle distinction; please don't misrepresent it. Having said that, I think that it is very often the case that individual chapters are a better locus for such decisions, as they will most often be closer to the volunteers who would be most useful for us to support.
2. I think it would extremely inappropriate for the Foundation, or Wikipedia itself, to take any position whatsoever on the Laffer curve or tax policy generally.
3. I don't know. I have no strong opinion about it. The one thing that I can say is that I would be more likely to encourage the Foundation to look into carbon offsets than to discourage them from travel on purely environmental grounds.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't log in primarily because every time I do, other editors who disagree with me follow me across articles to challenge work completely unrelated to any subject they've ever worked on before, seemingly out of spite. It still happens logged out, but not nearly as often. Thank you for taking the questions seriously. They were in no way insincere or meant to try to trap you. (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Tarc and Wikipedia Review



has just been featured on the Popbitch messageboard. A commentor among that pretty unshockable community has said "now I know it's the all-encompassing encyclopaedia but bloody hell. Is that necessary?" I couldn't agree more. Is this an encyclopedia or a porn site? (talk) 10:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This really should be speedy deleted. Vincent Liu (something to say?) 10:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Whether this file and alike should be deleted or not, should be discussed in Wikimedia Commons, not in Wikipedia. Because honestly Jimbo has no power to remove them from the public eyes until a policy to delete any non-historic and unused file is passed in Commons. Before that we're totally powerless to deal with these files due to the opposition from our community. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 11:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
That would be a lot of deletion requests on flowers..., beside the fact that some of the images might be used in future articles would be missing if such a policy passed. I'm not really favoring this image (animations should be video files, for bandwidth and resolution sake), but i also don't know why it shouldn't exist. --/人 ‿‿ 人\ 署名の宣言 11:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
With 1 more amendment: can be easily produced again or done better. The tolling bells is one of the shining examples of such kind of unused file. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 11:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
This has previously been nominated for deletion and kept by the unanimous vote of some of the most respected contributors of Commons. The uploader of that particular image has contributed many valuable images to Commons. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I wish I hadn't clicked on that ...! It looks like one man with an inordinate (and rather undeserved IMHO) amount of pride in his genitalia is using Commons as his private porn stash for gifs and photos of his beloved meat and two veg. Since when did Commons become a repository of 'how to masturbate' gifs? How is that encyclopedic? (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Funny how the same names keep coming up over there when we discuss how problematic Commons is. We have the globally banned sex crimes felon (Beta M), the Beta M cheerleading squad (mattbuck, stefan4), Cirt (of anti-Scientology and anti-Santorum fame), and...Fae (the proverbial "no introduction needed"). Has serious thought been given to the proposal floated a few times to simply disperse whatever material is salvageable to the local wikis to host and simply dissolving Commons itself? Tarc (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with Tarc on this one. Most of the controversial sexual images on Commons are not being used in any Wikipedia articles, so they drag down the reputation of Wikipedia without providing any serious benefit to the encyclopedia project. Images like the tolling bells animation would be acceptable if there were an 18+ category image filter, but this proposal has been blocked by the lack of consensus.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
How are discussions at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Personal_Image_Filter going? JN466 17:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The last time I looked, a couple of days ago, it was full of editors who either oppose any notion of a filter for Wikipedia or who have missed the point that Jimbo's proposal is for a simple filter based on a blacklist of Commons categories. So it appears to be being filibustered by unfocussed waffle, and in the case of some contributors I suspect that's an intentional derailing. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, unfocused waffle only. Like a working image filter someone happened to mention there. Which is absolutely a distraction, because the whole point of our new Wikipediocracy government is to tell us what images we're allowed to see and which not, which sources we can use and what we can't, which editors will be blackballed in a McCarthyistic campaign and which won't. We should just destroy Commons, ban all the good contributors, why not? The sooner that everyone on Earth has a visceral understanding that the sole purpose of Wikipedia is censorship, to conceal amid a seemingly comprehensive raft of user-contributed "facts" the minor defect that major swathes of information have been taken out according to somebody's political agenda, or somebody's bogus "ethics" about why we can't tell the truth about practically any topic, the sooner it is looked on with universal contempt as an example of the invariable progression of communism to totalitarianism, the sooner those who seriously love knowing the full truth about everything can try to build something new. Probably, completely from scratch, though I would have hoped for better. Wnt (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Maybe it's just me, but I think I detected a note of sarcasm in that post... Robofish (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Sounds not like sarcasm to me. It has much more truth in it as exaggeration. The development from a more or less communism alike system to a totalistic, centralized, commercial driven system is more then obvious. At least if i write down the recent top down attempted and imposed changes, draw a line below them and write down a conclusion, then it is hard to construct a very different interpretation. --/人 ‿‿ 人\ 署名の宣言 12:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
The minute you use "communist" or "totalistic" to describe a proposal that is contrary to your ideology, you just sound like a Wikipolitician than a contributor to me. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
It's just the usual amount of exaggeration and worst case picking, as i read it every time at this discussion page. ;-) --/人 ‿‿ 人\ 署名の宣言 13:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
What bollocks, Wnt. Nobody is telling you which images you can and can't see. Are Google or Flickr telling you which images you can and can't see? Nope. (Hint: they're filtered.) JN466 12:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
PS: The "working image filter" you mention is distinctly non-working. --JN466 12:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Anthony. So, is this initiative going anywhere, or has it been abandoned? JN466 12:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I still haven't been back for a look, mate, so I really couldn't say. Sorry. Some of the discussion there I didn't understand and what I could understand seemed to be off-topic. Jimbo specified a category blacklist-based, project-specific filter. I've proposed an image blacklist-based project-specific filter at Controversial content/Brainstorming, rather than Jimbo's discussion because it doesn't fit his specifications. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is a compendium of all human knowledge, and that includes masturbation techniques. Count Iblis (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

That is an uncommon definition of the word encyclopedia, and one which bears little resemblance to actual examples of encyclopedias. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Completely outside the image itself, Wikipedia is an uncommon example of encyclopedias, and bears little resemblance to other actual encyclopedias. We should probably be accustomed to that. Darryl from Mars (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Are we really that different? If i leave out the facts that our entries are written by volunteers and that it utilizes the advantages of digital media, then there isn't much of a difference. Maybe you can enlighten me why it should be so different- --/人 ‿‿ 人\ 署名の宣言 08:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you just haven't been reading these encyclopaedias. ;) WilyD 08:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
An encyclopedia is a compendium of all human knowledge, and that includes the rules of 10 pin bowling and how to start a fire with two sticks. If those are encyclopedias, that information is included, right? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Probably yes. WilyD 06:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Much as the encyclopedias of sexual practices don't include the rules of bowling, the bowling encyclopedias don't include information on sexual practices. An encyclopedia is not a compendium of all human knowledge, it is generally a collection of related material on specific topics or themes (as the links above demonstrate) or an overview of many topics, usually written by experts and edited by professional editors who choose which topics to include and which to leave out. The simple fact of the matter is that Wikipedia is unlike most other encyclopedias and is probably the least representative example of an encyclopedia. Whether or not masturbation techniques belong in WP is a valid question, but redefining a commonly understood word is not the way to convince people. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
But Wikipedia is not limited to specific subject areas, so it should naturally contain whatever is in any other decent encyclopedia. Also, it would be good to have in electronic form what is in paper sources. If in a few decades time we are able create an artificial brain, you could then connect it to Wikipedia and it would have pretty much all of the knowledge about the world as we have, including our sexual practices. Then consider what would happen if we leave out certain topics. The AI would read all of Wikipedia and then it would know that there are certain things it still doesn't know everything about that he can figure out, should be common knowledge to humans. So, it would then ask questions about that. Then if these missing topics were primarily about sexual matter, then so would the questions the AI would ask :) . Count Iblis (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Just be so good and tell people in the next fundraiser that we offer their kids this, as well as all of that. JN466 12:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
This is an "OMG think of the children" argument. What is more relevant is that images like these are not being used in Wikipedia articles, and are available without an image filter.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I tend to think of it as a "Don't mislead people in your fundraiser" argument. The next fundraiser should not contain any testimonials implying that Wikipedia is a child-safe resource thar's wonderful to use for kids of all ages. JN466 23:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not promise to be a child-safe (or adult-safe) resource in line with WP:NOTCENSORED. However, Wikipedia does try to ensure that the use of sexual images in articles is minimal, meritable and article specific. Commons is another country, they do things differently there. I'm not sure that the regular debates over this issue can ever be resolved without hosting Wikipedia's images on-wiki.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I am talking about fundraiser materials, not the small print in the disclaimer. I gave examples of these testimonials before. Here are a few from the 2011 fundraiser again:
  • We are a family that live in the interior of Brazil in a very poor state. We have opened a learning center and work with local children from nearby villages. Wikipedia is INVALUABLE for this work. The knowledge available to them on Wikipedia is a thread of contact with the 'outside world' and empowers them!
  • Wikipedia helps me teach my children about the world in a safe, clean and trustworthy manner. Free from bias, banter, commercial interests and risky content. I know I can count on Wikipedia to give well documented answers on almost ever subject imaginable. It truly has become one of the most intriguing successes of the internet!
  • What I'm trying to say is that Wikipedia has provided children with a supplemented education outside of the formal school system with the freedom to learn what they find interesting. Wikipedia is helping to create a better future across the globe.
  • Wikipedia has been a wonderful recourse for my children and me to learn new terms, knowledge, and culture background as an immigrant family. It is a safe and trustworthy website for children to do their research. I especially moved by the spirits of all the volunteers around the world to make this happen.
  • Thanks to websites like 'Wikipedia', children of all ages can continue their endeavor in learning. Kudos Wikipedia on creating a human interface that allows us all to teach and be taught! The future is NOW!
All I am saying is, be honest. Say in the next fundraiser, "We will teach your children about masturbation. We have faithful volunteers who will go into their bathroom, masturbate, and take a video of it with their digital camera, so that your children can see what masturbation looks like, and how it is done." JN466 12:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • There is not one reason why some sex-ed material on Wikipedia makes it any less useful for operating a learning center in Brazil. The operators of the center have many choices: (a) ignore the porn, it's nothing the kids won't see anyway; (b) install censorware, which if they care, is an issue for any computer that has free access to the internet; (c) supervise the kids intently. They say Wikipedia is useful and I say you don't know better than they do that they're wrong.
  • There is not one reason why "porn" on Wikipedia reduces its usefulness for an adult looking for material he can use to teach his children.
  • Undoubtedly some of these offerings allow children to gain "supplemental education". I think that for them to learn that censorship is stupid and there's no reason to be afraid of pictures does create a better future across the globe.
  • As for the person calling Wikipedia a safe site, well, we both know that there have indeed been quite a few pedophiles here who have been open about their affiliations, and that is presumably only a tiny minority, so that's one who might want to think more carefully. A few explicit photos might have helped him to do that. Wnt (talk) 13:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
All I am saying is, tell people in the fundraiser. Tell them what sex-ed material there is. Tell them plainly, without censorship, that it is Wikimedia volunteers going into the bathroom, having a wank, and uploading a digital camera video of it. Don't make noises that make it sound like Wikipedia is Reader's Digest. Inform people and let them vote with their wallets. JN466 14:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Saying Wikipedia can't have a fundraiser without talking about wanking is like saying they can't have one without talking about the Rorschach test, German postage stamps, Islam in medieval Christian artworks, Agatha Christie plots ... yeah, guess what, they're all desperately offensive to somebody. Sorry, there's no room on the plane for every crackpot who wants to invite himself to the convention. Wnt (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah, Agatha Christie plots. I was pretty much the only one to oppose deletion of spoiler warnings (though at least one person has supported me after the fact). But never did I suspect that the same excuses for deleting spoiler warnings would be used to fill Wikipedia with bad amateur porn. I guess keeping spoiler warnings was more important than I thought.
And as for the specific example of the fundraiser, there's a difference between not mentioning everything and not mentioning things that are directly contrary to your own statements. If you're going to state that Wikipedia is especially useful to educate children, the existence of child-unfriendly material directly contradicts what most people will interpret those statements to mean, even if it's true on some literal level because adults can use it to teach their children about sex. Deceit consists of more than literal falsehoods; true but misleading statements are still deceit. Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia and Commons are now miles apart over this issue. If Commons keeps stonewalling over the issue of an image filter, it is not the fault of the encyclopedia project, where there is a consensus that sexual images should have article related merit and not give unnecessary offence.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
In defense of Commons, their scope isn't bound by usage-in-wiki but rather as a repository of freely-licensed material in general. For all the problems I've had with Mbz1 over the years, she's quite a beautiful photographer, and I'm pretty sure a lot of her work isn't used in any articles. Tarc (talk) 13:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Every Commons file is accessible in Wikipedia, and has its own page in Wikipedia. If you search Wikipedia for media on masturbation, the result looks like this: [7]. Among the results is this Wikipedia page: [8]. In addition, there are thousands of links to Commons in Wikipedia, including one on the masturbation page. JN466 14:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Besides, even Wikipedia includes hardcore porn videos in mainspace and lacks 2257 compliance statements for its sexually explicit media. --JN466 14:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
There are different notions of "safe". You can say that something is "not safe" if there is harm done in a scientifically verifiable way. One can also say that something is "not safe" if it violates certain norms without those violations necessarily being proven to cause harm. The sexual content issue falls mostly in the second category, it is not that different from Wikipedia not being safe for Muslims who don't want to see pictures of women who do not cover their faces. Count Iblis (talk) 15:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh please...Reductio ad Hitlerum. DeCausa (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
My argument above based on a real safety issue vs. safety being synonymous with whether or not cerain norms are adhered to, is not "Reductio ad Hitlerum". You may object to the example in the last line after the comma and call that "Reductio ad Hitlerum", but my argument still stands without that part. Count Iblis (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
You may object to the example in the last line after the comma and call that "Reductio ad Hitlerum" . I do & I did. The "Oh please" was for both that and your belief that it is about adherence merely to "certain norms". DeCausa (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
That is not true, Jayen. Anything on Mediawiki:Bad image list is filtered from all but specific pages, including from search results. If you are truly concerned about this, why are you asking about the media you object to here instead of Mediawiki talk:Bad image list? It has served as the project's porn filter since early 2006. It's only insufficient because people would rather try to stir up mass media controversies by complaining about uploads on prominent pages such as here and off-wiki than asking that objectionable uploads be added to the list. Npmay (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Because that isn't the purpose of the bad image list. It is meant for images that are constantly used for vandalism without having any other real method to stop the vandalism. It is not meant to be a list for any maybe objectionable image. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 署名の宣言 20:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
What is the difference between vandalism and interminable high profile concern trolling here and via news media organization linking to the most objectionable of such images? Npmay (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
That would be a precautionary reaction without a true reason after the definition of the list. --/人 ‿‿ 人\ 署名の宣言 07:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I am afraid you're quite mistaken, Npmay. To give a (NSFW) example, one of the first images on Mediawiki:Bad image list is File:A dilated male anus.jpg. This file appears in Wikipedia searches: [9], [10] (NSFW). And, to all intents and purposes, the file has its own page in Wikipedia: (NSFW). --JN466 20:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Great. Sorry. I guess someone should file a bug that new search results don't use display hooks like old search results did. Npmay (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


Dear Jimbo,

An admin in the has asked me not to use English in the discussions in I can not write in Azerbaijani, that's why I use English in the discussions. (I also provide a translation by Google Translate.)

He has also asked me not to refer to the rules and policies of the English Wikipedia.

He has mentioned that those who do not obey these two rules are going to be blocked !!!

I need to know your idea about these two issues. Regards, In fact 04:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you tell me more about why you are talking in English on the Azeri wikipedia about the rules of English Wikipedia? It is hard for me to form an opinion without more information.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok. There are two different issues:
1- I can speak in Azeri, but I can not write in Azeri language. That's why I use English in my discussions. ( I only use it in my discussions, and not in the articles )
I very much like to contribute in that wiki and I can even create articles like az:Fars körfəzinin Ərəb ölkələri or az:Bandari musiqi with the help of Google Translate.
Am I allowed to use English in my discussions in
BTW, I have used English in my discussions in other projects, but no one told me anything like that !
2- Can I refer to the rules of the English Wikipedia in ? For instance, in this revision an admin has reverted me. You know I had moved the disambig template to the bottom of the page, but it was reverted !!! ( Not to mention that they do not have a local rule for it ) In fact 07:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Well; the rules of English Wikipedia don't apply to other language projects. They apply only here. And I would imagine that a basic requirement of contributing to Azeri Wiki is being able to communicate in Azeri (we expect a basic level of English here, for example). I'd also be wary of Google Translate; although it is a decent enough tool for "quick" translations, it is not really good enough for, say, decent article content. At least in my experience. --Errant (chat!) 08:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me as if User:In talk has been pestering them on a POV naming issue - I have no strong opinion about the content dispute, as I have no idea what the correct answer is to the most common name in Azeri Wikipedia, but I can say that being a bit more polite than saying things like "I have been waiting for a week, and I was expecting a response!" would be a good idea. In any event, to answer your specific questions, I think it can be ok to speak in English if that is the only language you share in common with people at a particular language wiki (I have done it many times myself, of course), and it can be ok to discuss English language Wikipedia's rules and traditions elsewhere. But both need to be done with great deference and respect if you expect people to listen. NPOV is non-negotiable across all projects, but that doesn't mean that every little detail of the rules here apply elsewhere! And berating people about complex naming choices in a language you can't even read is almost never a good use of your valuable time. Why on earth do you even care?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Just a small correction in your words; I can speak and read Azeri, but I can not write it. In fact 08:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Late apologies and question

Hi Jimbo. I owe you two apologies. One for posting what was described as having “a chilling effect on discussion” to me later, and one for not having acknowledged and thanked you for the answer you gave me in spite of my terrible blunder some weeks ago. I really am sorry about it. This said, did you have a particular person in mind “at the German chapter [who] may be able to provide some feedback”? If not, I'm going to inform Geoff Brigham and let him handle the problem, if you have no objections. And just out of curiosity, had you read my last post on the thread? In any case, please accept my apologies. Thank you, Ajnem (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is a website not linked to Wikipedia allowed to call itself the 'Wikipedia Review'?

A simple enough question. As it says at the bottom of this and every page, "Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc". If the 'Review' was actually doing anything useful, I could see the benefit of ignoring the infringement, but given its content, the implication that it is anything 'official' is misleading at best. If people want to run a forum for whining about being incapable of complying with policy, for endless gripes about imaginary 'cabals', and for other nonsense, that is their choice - but they should be honest about who they are, or at least about who they aren't. AndyTheGrump 13:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no comment on the copyright issue as I am not a lawyer, but I would just like to note that for all intents and purposes the Wikipedia Review is an abandoned website, with just a few last gasps of occasional discussions happening these days. Most of the forums have been defaced with colorful epithets directed at yours truly by a banned user named in another topic above, with no active moderators to clean up. So, one of the Wikipedia's proverbial thorn-in-the-side is for all intents and purposed vanquished, though the Wikipediocracy still soldiers on bravely, if obscurely. Tarc (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I believe that USC Title 17 §107 allows for Fair Use exemptions, and says: "...for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright". Other subsections allow for different other Fair Use exceptions to exclusive use of copyrighted material. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 14:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
    • The term "Wikipedia" is actually trademarked, as opposed to copyrighted. As I understand it, it's permissible for someone to call their site Wikipedia Review, as long as they make it clear that they are not affiliated with Wikipedia or Wikimedia itself, which I think it is pretty common knowledge they are not. After all, someone can have a fan page—or a hate page—about the New York Yankees, and the team couldn't try to stop them from using the word "Yankees," although it could try to stop them from using things like the team logos. In any event, Tarc is correct that for better or worse, Wikipedia Review is basically moribund at this point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
      • There have been some appalling successes of censorship by claims of trademark dilution, e.g. regarding the "U-Hell Web Site", but from skimming this it sounds like overall the courts have started to wise up. Oh, also see [11], e.g. . Wnt (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Ah, a silly mistake on my part Brad, and one I should know better than to have committed. I stand corrected. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 19:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
(Standard disclaimer: the following is not legal nor professional advice.) A name that describes what the establishment does can include trademarks. For example, a "General Motors auto parts supplier" , or "Canon camera repair shop" can use those names; otherwise, the store would be unable to describe its business. As Newyorkbrad said, the establishment has to make its independence from the trademark owner clear. isaacl (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, Wikipedia Review is more or less moribund, with the leading figures of that site having migrated over to the new site Wikipediocracy in a split over moderation policy and personalities. Carrite (talk) 03:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Strange way of editing

Dear Mr. Wales I have recently registered an account after editing without an account for sometime. I have though found the way Wikiepidia is edited formally to be very odd. I am basing this on this discussion.

While I was not have been correct in my original claim of suspicious editing (I will be more careful next time). I find it very strange that good faith editing of a page to maintaining the quality of a page can be treated in such a way.

I have simply placed the page Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics on my watch list and have made frequent edits to the page removing and modifying content, adding in my own content and re-writing content.

I have been accused of "Revert Warring" by removing content which I considered to be of little or no relevance, dubious noteworthiness, little or no encyclopaedic value or was generally not in keeping with the maintenance of a high quality article. I have engaged in lots of discussion on this article as well over the content.

I would like to know if this is what you genuinely think revert warring policies were designed to combat and weather there is a danger that this kind of good faith editing could be driven away by this interpretation of revert warring. Sport and politics (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments from AndyTheGrump

  • "removing content which I considered..." Did anyone else agree with your opinions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    • It doesn't really matter, that is besides the point. If your question refers to the multiple discussions which occurred on the article talk page please view the discussions on the talk page. I am now asking for the opinion of User:Jimbo Wales. Sport and politics (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Sorry, are you saying that it doesn't matter whether whether anyone else agrees with your opinions over what is "of little or no relevance, dubious noteworthiness, little or no encyclopaedic value...", you are still entitled to ignore long-standing policies when it suits you? And yes, I can see that you are asking for Jimbo's opinion. Do you intend to continue to ignore the opinions already given at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance#Cla68 (talk) Ownership and unfounded clims and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Independnt review required potential suspicious editing, where multiple contributors have tried to explain policy to you. If you do, I can't see why Jimbo's opinion should be so important to you. And come to that, I can't see why Jimbo could even be expected to respond... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Jimbo has an open door policy and its up to him as to if he chooses to respond and its not up to any other user to make that decision for him. It is also not right for any user to say effectively it is wrong to post here as you have implied by saying "come to that, I can't see why Jimbo could even be expected to respond". Reading the talk page of that article in question will show extensive discussions. I now await the response of user: Jimbo Wales on what is an issue which has in my opinion potentially serious implications for good faith editing of articles on Wikipedia. It is though up to him what he decides to do and is for no of us to try and make those decisions for him Sport and politics (talk) 11:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
          • You have expressed your opinions repeatedly. Others have expressed theirs, and are as entitled to comment here as you are. Meanwhile, while waiting for a response, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for removal of adminship

Hi. I was reading your quote here, and thinking about the various comments you have made concerning adminship over the years. And was wondering what you think of this proposal. - jc37 01:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


Sup Jimbo? I wondered if you wanted a WikiFame, Wikipedia's hall of fame. I think I've already thought out the inaugural class:

  • Jimbo Wales (Founder of Wikipedia)
  • Larry Sanger (Co-Founder of Wikipedia)
  • Ward Cunningham (Inventor of the Wiki)
  • Jayemd (Inventor of the WikiFame)
  • StrikeEagle (Retired Wikipedian)

So, what do you think? --Jayemd (talk) 03:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and one more inductee:

  • Andrew Schlafly (King Of Wikipedia) (LOL!) --Jayemd (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Is it really right to include yourself? Sport and politics (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Well I invented WikiFame, right? So it would make perfect sense to induct the inventor of WikiFame into the inaugural class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayemd (talkcontribs) 11:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I think the creator should have the honour bestowed upon them independently of them-self. Sport and politics (talk) 11:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok! But before I'm inducted, I gotta ask you one question: Would you really want me in the WikiFame? Jayemd (talk) 12:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Listing just Jimbo as founder and no mention of Larry Sanger might have looked innocent. Listing Jimbo and Larry both as co-founders, sure. But listing one as founder and the other as co-founder...? (talk) 12:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I like it, I mean the Co-Founder. It's good dialectics and it made me laugh, Ajnem (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    • What about Essjay?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm pretty sure that Essjay isn't another co-founder. ☺ You'll find that xe is mentioned at Wikipedia:History of Wikipedian processes and people#Notable contributors and has been since 2010. (No, Jayemd, you didn't invent this.) Uncle G (talk) 23:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
        • You didn't invent it either, Uncle G, and in response to the confusion between the Co-Founders of Wikipedia, I basically listed Sanger as a 'Co-Founder' because he is no longer in control of Wikipedia (I think he retired, but I might be wrong.) --Jayemd (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I think he makes YouTube videos instead now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


Ok, I'll try again- I dont see how things have changed in the 1 1/2 to 2 years since I stopped regularly editing. Those same editors continue to be the same ones I see on Jimbo's page, AN/I and elsewhere for incivility and outrageous behaviour. I dont appreciate my original question being lumped in with another thread and closed out by someone other than Jimbo. It is a legitimate question to wonder why the same people get criticized but nothing happens to them. ps- unless you are Jimbo, since this is his page, please dont close out my thread. If HE doesnt want it here, he more than is capable of saying so, and I will name-drop Tarc and anyone else who is rude to me and to anyone else. I do believe I have the right to mention anyone's name I want. Winston Churchill and Eleanor Roosevelt. There I just name dropped some more. (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I would assume it's because the community thinks they're more useful than they are trouble. I don't usually agree with that way of thinking myself, but this has not been a useful method of trying to change it in the past. My second assumption is that this attempt will likely be deleted and/or archived soon. --OnoremDil 19:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Many troublemakers leave some do not: I know it is frustrating to see civil, helpful editors struggle against obstruction for years, then get burnout and leave, while the other editors move on to other victims. I was even considering "running for admin" on the platform that I would block trolls, based on a careful analysis of baiting actions and wp:TAGTEAM edits. However, several admins have noted being charged with "admin abuse" for trying to fight various troublemakers. Meanwhile, please understand that many troublesome editors have left Wikipedia, and some have even ranted, in a last ditch effort to insult *everyone*, so their final edits were rev-del'd to censor the obnoxious edit-summary texts. The only hope I see is to raise awareness at wp:ANI; and if they are accepted there, then consider using wp:CLEANSTART to select a new username (under admin guidance), where the troublesome users will not know which usernames to wp:Wikihound any longer. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I've known at least one formerly troublesome editor who has since settled down and become productive and civil, so don't assume that because some of the same figures are here they are necessarily as problematic as they once were. If your current account is banned I would suggest emailing Arbcom or an individual Arb and requesting that they agree to end the ban. If it is merely blocked then you can file an unblock request. ϢereSpielChequers 13:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia adverts on TV

What's your opinion on Wikimedia advertising itself on television? (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Medicine

You and other editors may be in interested in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#The nature and purpose of Wikimedia Medicine (version of 16:01, 1 August 2012), which has a link to meta:Talk:Wikimedia Medicine (version of 16:04, 1 August 2012).
Wavelength (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

help with red tape

Please help with red tae and bureaucracy. I posted and several people replied but you did not and neither did any administrators. The discussion is in archive 112 which is the most recent of your talk page.

To summarize, five years or so ago I edited on medical topics but then answered a question that a reader posed about a politician. Political supporters then banned me with the fabricated excuse of being a sockpuppet and not being a doctor. I then posted my medical diploma but they just laughed and became sadistic.

A few days ago, I posted on this page and several people suggested IAR and just violate the rules and start a new account. I am afraid that they will use that as an excuse for another ban. Besides, sneaking is unethical Therefore, I ask for your ok to start an account or a pardon with the condition that my summary is accurate. Two administrators giving the ok is almost as good. Please do not ask me to go through bureaucratic hoops. Thank you. (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Wales or administrators, would you help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

To the anon editor, I am an admin here (though really, that doesn't mean anything particularly special, I just get a few extra buttons and a lot more work for it). One of the most important things we do on this project is to listen to one another. Instead of demanding yet again that things be done your way, please go back to the archive section you cite, read the advice of the editors there, and try to follow it. If you can tell us what account it was you edited under, we can certainly look into lifting the block or ban (and determine which one applied, they're not the same thing). This far in the future, we'd probably be well inclined to consider it. But even if that happens, you will be expected to listen to other editors, and if several of them keep telling you the same thing, to consider that they may be right and not insist on having it done your way anyway. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. IAR and starting a new acct and editing well was suggested. I plan to do this based on thie suggestion in the archives. I will check with: seraphimeblade and ask someone else to confirm this is ok. (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
It seems like that happens a lot on this page. Someone comes forth with claims of mistreatment which, if as described, certainly would be something to be concerned about. He follows up by refusing to post any details which can confirm that the bad treatment really happened.
At this point, I'm about as skeptical of anyone reporting bad treatment here as I am of someone who claims scientists don't believe he has a perpetual motion machine. If he did, it would be revolutionary, but chances are, he doesn't.
Evidence and references are actually important. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Pages moves and your 2011 Wikimania closing speech

So I was watching the video of your closing speech at Wikimania 2011 (I wasn't able to find the videos from '12, where are those things?), and I think you made great points about the system for proposing page moves, and about these kinds of systems in general.

"Actually, maybe there should be a button, that when you click 'Move', that it says 'Hey, do you think this might be controversial?' 'Yes' 'Thank you, we've made the request for you and everything's done.'"

— Jimmy Wales, Closing speech, Wikimania 2011

More than a year later, the page move system is still a mess of templates. Any idea what happened there? Did it get discussed, and rejected by the the community? Vetoed by the WMF? Were there no developers available to work on it? Or did everyone just forget the whole thing?

I'm going to assume for the moment that it was lack of developer resources that was the problem, so I went and started a possible implementation at User:Yair rand/ControversialMoves.js. (It probably still needs some cleanup before it could be usable.) I'd be really disappointed if the entire reason nobody acted on the idea was that nobody thought the problem was important enough, though. Simplifying complicated procedures just makes so much sense. --Yair rand (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jimbo.

Feast your eyes on the mess that is Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. Ain't it wonderful? --Τασουλα (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

ITN should be abolished for outright subjective reasons AND encouraging the creation of NOTNEWS articles as justification on an encycopaedia instead of wikinews. Every dadmin uses their own opinion of consensus and update with wildy varying standards. As opposed to DYK which has a fixed objective criteria and is almost always notable. The later doesnt even have the slanging matches and hindrance to change/reform.(Lihaas (talk) 00:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)).
What are we supposed to be seeing here? --Carnildo (talk) 00:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I also don't get it. Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates seems like a reasonably well run discussion, I've never seen something on the front page that seemed to be a problem, and people I know in real life, who don't know I edit Wikipedia, have remarked to me that they like it. WilyD 07:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


Hello, Jimbo Wales. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.Ajnem (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Fcite stuck in approval cycles

The Template:Fcite (and related 5x-faster citation templates) have been stuck in formal approval cycles, for nearly a month. The original intent was to allow use of quick cite templates in slow major articles (>5,000 pageviews/day), to format cites 5-6x faster, enabling those articles to edit-preview or reformat 3x faster (6-13 seconds rather than 18 to 39 seconds, like most nations: Brazil, Canada, U.S., Egypt, Israel). Unfortunately, the related TfD for Fcite was closed, incorrectly, as basically, "Don't delete don't use" which, for templates, is nonsense akin to an article as "Keep don't read" or "Keep but text visibility off". Instead, the growing consensus was, actually, "carefully improve, test and deploy" but the TfD was closed incorrectly, and I amended to request a formal re-close as clarified (TfD Fcite amended). Meanwhile, adding more features, to the Fcite templates, has been a slippery slope where each added feature leads to another, and eventually, over 450 parameters are being checked in {Fcite_journal} while still 5x faster. Unfortunately, that has led to another Catch-22, where more parameters should encourage and hasten wider acceptance from users wanting more features, but more parameters means testing becomes more complex, which can further delay acceptance instead. The simplest solution seems to be to offer an extremely simple template, easy to test, and clearly indicate the few parameters supported, while not involving the "85 rare parameters" which have made parameter-testing another complex approval cycle. Otherwise, this is another case of "21 pages" being approved in 2 years. We reached this point because "wp:Don't worry about performance" allowed Template:Citation/core to become a slow, sluggish giant, when instead, it should have been improved, or circumvented 3 years ago, due to known performance problems. Now, it is bureaucratically embedded into 1.6 million articles, and attempts to improve are met with technical limitations and extreme resistance to change. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Cool story, bro. Now some facts.
  • You created a suite of stripped down templates with limited functionality
  • They rendered more quickly than the existing ones
  • You deployed them without testing
  • But they did not work very well so were removed from articles where they were used
  • A TfD discussion was opened
  • And closed with the words "no consensus to delete, but there is consensus that this should be kept as a testbed, for helping to improve existing citation templates, and not deployed in article space"
  • You disagree with the close and choose to ignore it instead of seeking a review.
Have I left anything out? pablo 11:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Forgot to mention 25 revisions to meet user requests: Meanwhile, the reality is that several users noted they wanted more parameters and would support consensus to keep, if using extra parameters was not as limited, so I made over 25 more revisions to the Fcite templates to support more parameters (see history of {Fcite_web} or {Fcite_journal} ). I disagreed with the closing admin, and requested a revised closure, which is proper. Since the templates were not TfD-deleted, then a "deletion review" is not needed. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Sort of covers it. It's only an approval cycle because it has been made one. For most other people it is just: "not approved" and that is then called 'consensus'. I also invite everyone who is really concerned about Cite performance to invest the time into a proper PHP extension instead. Several attempts have already been made, to finish just requires a whole lot more of refinement and effort, but it's doable and would be even faster than a Scribunto based replacement (which btw also would benefit from more developers). —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 12:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Meanwhile, the Fcite templates are ready for use: I have no objections to developing a "proper PHP extension" to format citations someday; however, meanwhile, the expanded, improved {Fcite} templates are ready for use, now, in major articles, to allow edit-preview or reformat of large articles to run 3x faster. A re-reading of the TfD for Fcite will confirm that many users expressed support for using the templates, with requests to allow the extra parameters now added, and to comply with wp:CITEVAR to show the same citation format as in Help:Citation_style_1. There is really no big deal here. The TfD was merely closed with the incorrect wording as, "not deployed in article space" which should be instead, "tested then deployed in article space". -Wikid77 (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
If you deploy this in articles despite the TfD closure not to, you will find yourself blocked for disruption. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure why you would suggest that in writing "not deployed in article space" the closing admin meant "tested then deployed in article space". Given results of the last deployment, your assertion that they are *now* ready and fit for purpose is not too inspiring, either. pablo 15:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Compromise consensus was test before deployment: The consensus position, between Delete and Use-regardless, is the middle ground, as to be "tested then deployed in article space". There was concern that the operation of the templates was not yet acceptable for author-name links, so the prior testing in articles is needed before saving an article edit. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Bzzt. You Made That Up. Please be a collegial participant and use what you've developed to "improve existing citation templates". We need fewer varieties of citation, not more. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Tell you what, make a few (how's 10 sound?) userspace copies of existing large articles, test them out, and give us links to the results. Or open a new RfC on the Pump. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The prior revisions of 30 articles already use the templates, but they were reverted in the later revisions. See articles: "Canada", "Brazil", "Sandra Bullock", "United States", "Egypt", "Wikipedia", "India", etc. Compare the reformat time of the prior revisions edited by "Wikid77" (every prior revision of an article will reformat every time when displayed). -Wikid77 (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't have time to check all of them, but I checked "Canada." At a guesstimate, my very slow work connection took 3-5 seconds less (still a long time, it's a really bad connection) on your version (here) and I didn't see anything broken. My recommendation, if that holds true for the others, is to take these results to the Village Pump with a new RfC to request that these be authorized now that you've fixed them. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the language used by the closing admin at the TfD doesn't make much sense. "Keep and test forever" sounds more like an Aperture Science policy than a closing comment on a Wikipedia template. (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Where do these performance numbers come from? "6-13 seconds rather than 18 to 39 seconds" seems utterly incompatible with my editing experience. Perhaps this must be some new meaning of the word "second" of which I was previously unaware. And are the performance improvements server-side or client-side? bobrayner (talk) 09:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Look at the view-source rendering of HTML for server-timestamp: Using the MSIE browser option <View><Source>, then the numbers such as "23.055 seconds" can be seen at the bottom of each HTML-markup page during edit-preview, or reformat with Special:Preferences thumbnail size set higher/lower than 220px, or anyone viewing any older revision of a page. The improvement starts at faster server-side rendering of the wiki-markup into HTML, but of course, quickly improves the client-side speed between requesting a page title and seeing the page start to display. The lag for display of the remaining thumbnail images is unchanged. Only the older revisions which already use Fcite will re-display faster, because each prior revision is re-rendered from the typical wiki-markup using whichever templates are in that revision. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong - I'm all in favour of optimisation if heavily-used templates are causing performance problems - but everything has a cost:benefit ratio. In this case, there would be significant (non-performance) costs in terms of changing how we use templates which are at the heart of WP:V. So we'd better make sure the benefits are clear, and measured sanely. bobrayner (talk) 12:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I thought so, too, Bob, but then I tried editing all of India at once, and got similar numbers for myself. Still think if we're going to fork the citation templates, it makes more sense to fork the instances using "rare" parameters and slim down the core templates so that articles in general benefit. Choess (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The standard templates are already 23 forks: Many people agree that the core templates should be slimmed and improved, but unfortunately, thousands of articles use the 23 fork templates ({Cite_news}, {Cite_encyclopedia}, {Cite_press_release}, {Cite_journal}, {Cite_web}, etc.) running the massive Template:Citation/core, with various alias parameters (the main parameters have about 6 alias names each). So, rather than "boil the ocean" to improve suspected performance of all articles using a myriad of forks and aliases, the tactic has been to fix the known, slowest major articles, such as most of the top pop-culture articles (current films) or the 370 nation articles: Brazil, India, Canada, UK, England, U.S., etc. If there were an easier method to slim the core templates, then it would have been done during the past 3 years. Instead, improvements to the core would only be slightly faster speed, not 5x-6x faster, but we are still discussing tactics there as well. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The current Signpost suggests we will be seeing Lua a lot sooner than expected, perhaps this month. (Lua is a programming language that will be callable by a template, and which drastically speeds up stuff like the refs being discussed here, although of course it will take ages to code and test.) Johnuniq (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia is a failure Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted the previous comment in this thread because it is an insulting personal attack. I've read the talk page and the 3RR report, and Still-24-45-42-125 seems to have been hard done by. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree to an extent. Basically, My question is this. Did Still violate 3RR? No. Did they edit-war? Borderline. Does the person who reported them have a demonstrated intent to get them blocked? Yes - Still provided a diff that supports that clearly. In other words, I wouldn't have blocked, and I would have unblocked, were I an admin. I would have trout-slapped Still, though. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 12:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • FALSE. That is not what was shown in the diff provided by the user. This insinuation is categorically, absolutely false.
Those interested should take a look and judge for themselves: [12] What we have here is a prediction, not a plot. There is little doubt the user thought it was a plot, but that was a paranoid delusion. Belchfire-TALK 19:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
"Just be patient, always warn him on his talk when he's disruptive, and never never edit war with him. That only engenders sympathy for him." Sounds like a plot to me. Acoma Magic (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Sounds more to me like common-sense advice on Wikietiquette. Belchfire-TALK 21:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
It's advice on how to bring a block about and more advice on how to avoid endangering that block. Acoma Magic (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Please explain how to "bring about a block" against a user who maintains good behavior. This user would have never been blocked had he not edit-warred. That's the bottom line, and there's no denying it. Lionel's advice here is to avoid engaging in bad behavior oneself and to respond appropriately when bad behavior is encountered. Nothing more, nothing less. If that is "plotting to have somebody blocked", then half of Wikipedia is equally guilty. Belchfire-TALK 21:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Your first question is irrelevant. He didn't edit war. If what he did is your definition of edit-warring then we'll need a lot more admins to deal out blocks. Lionel's advice is about one user with the purpose of getting him blocked. Half of Wikipedia has not done that and the plans of Lionel, you and ViriiK is harassment because the purpose is to get him off Wikipedia. Acoma Magic (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Irrelevant? "Inconvenient" would be closer to the truth. It doesn't matter if you or I think he was edit-warring - the admins think he was edit-warring. But had he not provided any actionable behavior to report, the whole thing would be a non-starter, wouldn't it? No, it's not irrelevant; it's 100% on-point. If you don't screw up, you don't get blocked. End of story. Belchfire-TALK 21:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Irrelevant because we're discussing the plan of you three to get him blocked. The report was false because he didn't break the 3RR and therefore shouldn't have even gone to the noticeboard. His actions are performed often on contentious topics and even on uncontentious ones, that's why it's not edit warring. Acoma Magic (talk) 21:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to ask you politely to refrain from repeating that accusation again.
I checked, and I'm having trouble finding the "contentious topics" exemption in WP:EW. I'm not saying it isn't there, mind you. Just that I'm having trouble finding it. Regardless, I think this discussion has reached it's logical conclusion. Have a good one. Belchfire-TALK 22:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I stand by it. Regarding policy, avoiding breaking the 3RR does not automatically mean you're not edit-warring. However, 3 reverts are performed all the time without blocks being issued. Acoma Magic (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
One more thing, I happen to come across this article and noticed you three editing against Still. I chanced upon this page without checking the contributions of any of you so I don't know how many articles are similar. It'd be best to avoid editing in concert against Still anymore, given the plot controversy. Acoma Magic (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Still24 "energetically edited" on several pages, including Thomas Sowell, Mitt Romney, War on Women, Chick-Fil-A, etc. all in the space of a few days on "silly season" articles.
He also warned other editors (vide [13], [14]) about "edit warring" of all things!
And "participated" at WP:DRN at [15] where his parting shot was Got plenty more reliable sources where that came from, but you've cloaked like a Romulan, so I expect that you won't even try to rebut my argument so one might see a problematic editor to say the least. I seriously doubt that he would have gone another week without another EW finding. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, my unblock would have been a WP:ROPE unblock, to be sure. But I still would have, were I an admin. Which I never want to be. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 13:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that Still-24-45-42-125 was probably heading for trouble. Maybe not, though. Anyway, this block was early, and they have a right to be annoyed. Hopefully they'll put it behind them, and maybe avoid the controversial stuff for a bit. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not going to second-guess the reviewing admin, who I think generally does excellent and clueful work. Viewed in isolation, the block was warranted for edit-warring, despite falling short of the 3RR threshold. But I can understand a certain level of frustration on Still's part. Basically, everyone is breaking the speed limit, and he's the one guy who got pulled over and ticketed. I agree with Collect that we should come down harder on combative, politically focused editing. But if that's our standard, then about 4 or 5 others violated it in addition to Still (including the person who reported him to AN3). Such is life. MastCell Talk 18:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Having now read further developments on the user's talk page and followed more diffs, I realise I've been staking out a dogmatic position about something I really know nothing about, again, so will quietly slink away at this point. :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Two quick things:

  1. Bottom line: The stated reason that I was blocked was alleged 4RR. That allegation, which came from an editor who swore to get me blocked, was false. At most, I hit 3RR, like all the other editors who didn't get blocked. Instead of admitting to their error, the admins who were involved decided to double down on it, finding an excuse to keep the block going.
  2. A number of the people who are commenting here are far from neutral. In fact, they're the ones who've been edit-warring to add conservative bias to articles and quite openly plotted to have me blocked.

That's all. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I am very sorry

I apologize for making everyone jealous of my username, it wasn't my intention. I hope it won't distract the community too much from achieving our goals. Ambiguous Furry Rocking Thing (talk) 04:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jimmy! Thanks for your email, I hope you don't mind if I answer here.
I am sorry, I have to decline your WP:USURP request.
Your offer is certainly generous, but I think swapping accounts would cause too much confusion. Ambiguous Furry Rocking Thing (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Please stop calling me, I don't have a drivers license so I wouldn't even know what to do with a gold-plated Ferrari. Ambiguous Furry Rocking Thing (talk) 06:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedians by MBTI personality type

From Category:Myers-Briggs user templates, I followed the links to 16 userboxes and counted the Wikipedians who have identified themselves by Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.

There is also a userbox for editors who have obtained different results from different MBTI tests.

Estimated frequencies of the types in the United States population are shown in parentheses after the number of self-identified Wikipedians, and are sourced from the following page.

According to Myers-Briggs Type Indicator#Applications (version of 19:33, 3 August 2012), the indicator "is frequently used in … group dynamics".
Wavelength (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that INTP, under-represented in the general population, is the largest group here (at least among the self-identifying, which may somewhat overstate the results).--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm... don't forget to count people using this modified INFP userbox? :) MastCell Talk 22:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
To put this in more familiar terms, Wikipedians average Int 14, Wis 8, Cha 7, and are worth 3 experience points apiece. Wnt (talk) 01:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
We've got to do something about the -6 on saving throws against personal offense to perceived attacks. (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Some people are more familiar with personality types than they are with Dungeons & Dragons gameplay#Ability scores (version of 11:28, 18 July 2012), and they wish to continue like that, because of Dungeons & Dragons controversies and because of their views about time-wasting distractions. Nevertheless, Wikipedia has Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons and Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Userboxes.
Wavelength (talk) 06:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, to illustrate, type "E" extroverted personalities have a larger number of friends/henchmen, i.e. a higher charisma; if we assume that Wikipedia has a shifted normal distribution of charisma with (approximately) the same standard deviation, then we need merely consider what proportion is above the median, i.e. Cha 10.5., as (dubiously) evidenced by the "E" self-rating. This gives us 210 above, 675 below, i.e. 23.7% E. This is roughly equal to the odds (25.9%) of getting 13 to 18 on 3d6, so it looks like Wikipedians are at slightly over a -2 penalty to the Charisma score. As I said, assuming a shifted normal distribution, that reduces the 10.5 average to 8. Sorry, I was a bit off in my quick guess. ;) I'll also admit that I still don't really know if the 693 out of 885 for "N" really refers to Wis or the 601 out of 885 "T" really refers to Int. What I'm pretty sure of is that the D&D stats (since appropriated by what must be thousands of other systems) seem more immediately meaningful to read about than these ISTP categories, which seem very nebulous and hard to decide except by answering near-meaningless questions that could go either way. Though Yi Jing I think is to be recommended over either. :) Wnt (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I do not know how much validity the MBTI system has, but I mentioned it here with the idea that it just might have some benefit for group dynamics on Wikipedia. After I read about "Int" and "Wis" and "Cha" in your post of 4:25, I did not know what they meant until I had performed a Web search for int wis cha. Anyway, different concepts have different kinds of appeal to different people. (Deuteronomy 18:9, 10, 11, 12; Luke 11:13; Galatians 5:22, 23)
Wavelength (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC) and 22:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't go to far with the Myer-Briggs test considering it's validity is not well established and it's basis is on Jungian thought. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

In what respect(s) is "Jungian thought" deficient?
Wavelength (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Jungs work and ideas were frequently not falsifiable and pseudoscientific. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Getty Images

File:WP on Getty images with watermark.jpg
The image in question violates CC-BY-SA.
No legal threats

Mr. Wales, I would like to bring your attention to the COM:DR for this image, featured on Copyfraud. It has been noted that the fact that Getty placed the watermark over the image may allow them to copyright the watermarked image. Nevertheless, Getty's use of the image violates Wikipedia's copyrights by failing to license the new work under the Creative Commons license.

Please send a cease-and-desist notice to asking them to relicense the image under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License. Thanks. (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, a notice really needs to be sent here. This is just...blatant copyvio on their part. SilverserenC 03:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
email (talk) 03:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Screenshots of a particular time in Wikipedia history may not be so cut and dry as far as copyright goes. They would have a hard time asserting copyright over this image in a court situation, but this isn't "Wikipedia text". It is a screenshot of the layout of the page during the SOPA incident. The image only shows the main page navigation with the SOPA banner prominently featured. How about rather than "cease and desist", you just remind Getty that Wikipedia is an open contribution to humanity and that the image should be distributed freely (per CC-BY-SA or GFDL), not copyrighted by Getty. -- Avanu (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Definitely Fair Use as it should be interpreted, though some might try to make issues out of such things. Don't say anything, but file this report away for such time as Getty Images threatens Wikipedia, to remind them if need be that the knife cuts both ways. Keep the photo on Wikipedia (not Commons) as Fair Use. Wnt (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Plus I think the actual shot counts as artistic interpretation whilst the informational content copied in the image is not enough to cause any trouble for them. Dmcq (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
There is nothing here that the average person could not do in Photoshop or a similar program. It is a derivative work and should still be CC. See "Share Alike" here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
If we sued them and they counter-sued over the same image, what would happen? (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
"Cease and desist" as in telling them they have two choices: to license the image under BY-SA or to remove the image. They're likely to choose the former. It might be more effective if multiple people send them letters. (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Getty Images is well out of order over this, but WP:NLT works both ways.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
It also very much does not apply here. NLT is about preventing people from using legal threats to bully and intimidate editors into complying with demands about contents; not stifle actual legal action. — Coren (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Getty Images should be asked to explain why it considers this image to be copyrighted, when it is clearly derivative of a CC image. It is not worth sending them any message that could be construed as a legal threat.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Emperor of Wikipedia redirects to your page

Emperor of Wikipedia redirects to Jimbo Wales. Any opinions about that? Do they ever call you that in the press in any nation? Dream Focus 04:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Well where else could that redirect go? ϢereSpielChequers 18:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I suspect Dream Focus' concern is that Jimbo's proper title is "God-King of Wikipedia". --Allen3 talk 18:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I suspect that redirect exists as a humorous alternative to a creation-protected article. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
A good "external link" for Parody? —Misty (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
It gives me hope in my ongoing quest to convince the Wikipedia community to give me the title of Dalek Supreme. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

A follow up on Bwilkins

I would not have come here, but then I saw this discussion and wished I had come here earlier instead of WP:WQA. A couple of days ago, I filed a Wikiquette report about BWilkins and his non-admin account for responding to my concerns about his admin actions with personal attacks (that is, a week after I left my original message, a week after he had responded the first time). It didn't help that he never gave a straight answer why he switched accounts, beyond saying he was "harassed" and acting like it was standard admin behavior. Only today has he gone on to further elaborate that it was "formal harassment from the primary editor in that Jimbo fiasco," which lead me here. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Bwilkins when editing as his "alternate non-admin account" does refer to the Bwilkins account in the third-person confusing the fact that the two are linked as the same person. Properly writting "I am on vacation as Bwilkins" when typing as the other account would be preferable IMO. But if one is on vacation and can not be on the other account, it makes one wonder why the "non-admin" account can be accessed and used for communication and not the admin one. If as now stated it is because of "harrassment", well that should be made more clear on both accounts. Harrassment doesnt mean you can hide. I tried hiding from Bwilkins and I got accused of sockpuppetry. In the discussion above linked by Ian.thomson it is pointed out that Bwilkins could be a little more clear on both pages and when speaking about the Bwilkins account when under the other account. If what someone does smells fishy, then it probably is a fish. BTW I'm Camelbinky, I'm not signed in, and I'm not a sockpuppet, and I'm not afraid of making that obvious. (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Many administrators use alternate non-admin accounts when they are not on their personal computer or other area where they feel the security might be insecure. If something were to happen and their account became compromised, it would be dangerous if they were using their admin account. I am fairly certain that this is what Bwilkins is doing here. For other examples see User:Hersfold non-adminRyan Vesey 14:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Ryan, that wasn't what happened. Bwilkins was told to stay off his admin account because of personal attacks against GabeMc. In an unrelated matter at around the same time, I left a message for Bwilkins questioning his admin actions, to which he responded under his alternate account. Then, a week later, he started attacking me on his alternate account, a week after the issue had been dropped. When I found out that who the alternate account was, he said that he wouldn't log on to his admin account because he was "harassed," and today it's become clear that he was referring to the report GabeMc filed about the personal attacks he (Bwilkins) made. At no point did he imply that GabeMc was trying to compromise his account, he left because he was advised to after attacking other editors, which he has continued to do as a non-admin. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is. I advised Jimbo via e-mail that in lieu of desysopping my Bwilkins account (which would also require the desysopping of an adminbot that performs admin actions), I would be switching to this account, and named it to him. When I first switched, I still had an editor who believed that the occasional swearing was somehow against Wikipedia policy, and was trolling through 6 years of contributions to try and use any bad word (even out of context) against me. That was full-bore harassment, and as such I originally only linked the accounts to ArbComm, Jimbo and one trusted Administrator. Not long after, I formally linked the accounts and continued to monitor my Bwilkins talkpage, etc. Nothing to see here folks. dangerouspanda 15:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that you continued to attack other users and refuse to acknowledge it. Regardless of what happened during GabeMc's later report, even Jimbo Wales agreed with the initial point that your incivility was a problem, which is why he recommended you switch accounts. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
And once again, continuing to imply that I'm not on Wikipedia to help the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
The proof is in your actions. This includes the fact that when you have been advised quite clearly to keep off of my talkpage, and the reason provided was quite clear (your brutal bad faith, as evidence by your continued provocation), you need to stay off my talkpage: it isenforceable if the harassment continues. dangerouspanda 15:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)If I hadn't notified you, would that have not opened the door to "oh, you're trying to talk about an editor behind his back"? And for the record, you said "Take your additional bad faith accusations elsewhere," not to not give you standard notification. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Looking at this: your notification of individuals related to the previous discussion was very selective: you only notified those who made negative statements: [16][17]. You also appear to have accused Bwilkins of having a sockpuppet account, you also demanded he ban a specific other editor and that he should "responsibility for the tendentious editor and block him". IRWolfie- (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I was quite confused at ESAL's recent offense over something that I directed at Bwilkins over a week ago, especially after he responded over a week ago as if he was a different person. Another admin made the block of that TE shortly after because it was more than justified, and Bwilkins was why that editor was not blocked earlier. I admit I notified editors who were concerned about Bwilkins's civility problems, along with his non-admin account, and admit that (per procedure) I should have notified the people who would only excuse his unacceptable attacks, as though they wouldn't come out of the woodwork on their own. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I have notified everyone from the previous discussion except a blocked user and an SPA IP whose only comment was a snide remark. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
"Nothing to see"?!! Seriously, this crap you continue to do with "I advised Jimbo via e-mail" is ridiculous and is getting old. First a secret apology to "the community" but it is sent to Jimbo's email. You have been a rude editor/admin to US not to Jimbo. You're obligations to be forthcoming and honest is to the Community, to all of us, not to Jimbo and who you choose. This is in no way the proper way to conduct yourself and only shows you lack the common sense and common pure democratic ideas that are Wikipedia, the idea that community consensus trumps all, that the community of editors makes decisions, that even Jimbo whom I personally respect and listen to is NOT the "emperor" people try to smear him with. You continue to obstruct the ability of the community to look into your actions and your behavior, you continue to always say "nothing to see here folks" and hide people who complain or attack them for "harrassment". Ridiculous. I will be watching your contributions as this new account, and I will continue to voice my opinions regarding your ability to contribute without being an ass. You always end your comments with such wording that there is no drama or discussion whenever someone brings you up on "charges"; (Personal attack removed) Now be a hypocrite and ban me, I dont give a flying fuck, Im sick of you and your backdoor conversations and trying to swat people like annoying flies. We are human beings trying to do something, and as long as those like you are around it makes it harder to get anything done.Camelbinky (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
What in the world are you talking about? My apology to the community as a whole was not secret: it was right here in Jimbo's talkpage. I have not attacked anyone, I have not been uncivil in the slightest. Indeed, I've created a couple of stubs, and pretty much stayed off of Wikipedia as a whole for a few weeks now. Please, do watch this account like a hawk. dangerouspanda 15:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I have removed your most overt personal attack. Related to this, I note your own past complaint about Bwilkins was about his use of swear words and incivility: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_111#Bwilkins.27_f-bombs. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
It is these sorts of situations that I find extremely paradoxical; we admins are purportedly power hungry, conniving tyrants who block who they please, yet we tend to be on the end of vicious attacks from non-admins about said personality traits; when that happens, we usually let go without sanction, thereby allowing ourselves to be walked all over. I'm disappointed that Bwilkins has felt the need to take a break from adminning, as I think he's one of our best, and the sooner he gets back to it the better. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I think this thread pretty much isn't going anywhere useful. Whatever the issues are, I can't see clearly what they are now, and whether they still pose a problem. If BWilkins felt the need to take a break, it was probably for the best, and I would say that he surely understands why it was needed, and I hope he makes the most of that break. At this point, unless there is an immediate problem Jimbo or the rest of us can solve, it might be better to just end this thread and begin anew. -- Avanu (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The account names Hersfold non-admin or Elen on the Roads make the account status plainly clear, the primary accounts are clearly viewable on the user page, and both are listed in the Alternative Wikipedia accounts category. The Bwilkins user talk page states This user is non-permanently away from Wikipedia as of July 23, 2012. (emphasis mine); the reference to Bwilkins on the ESAL page is not plainly viewable but contained within a link. So it's a false comparison to say ESAL is like Hersfold non-admin. That said, the Bwilkins account is off line and the most respectful and appropriate thing to do would be for us to let it alone until it becomes active again. Nobody Ent 16:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict)Bwilkins is voluntarily not acting as an admin and using his primary account. This was not a Wikipedia sanction as it did not take place at ArbCom. It was not an official sanction by Jimmy, who is not flexing his bit to bypass ArbCom. Bwilkins made at least one mistake, and is taking actions to remedy that mistake. Continuing to badger and bludgeon him over it is unseemly and more importantly, it is simply unfair. Fairness doesn't require a policy to back it up, it should be self-evident and applied to everyone equally, admin or not. If you want to demand that admins treat everyone fairly (and I would join you in that) then you must demand the same from yourself and treat him fairly as well. This has gotten out of hand, and needs to stop. I agreed and stated that Bwilkins needed a break, so I feel I am neutral in saying we need to stop bludgeoning him during this break. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 16:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Dennis I respectfully disagree. You can check this page's archives and see that I came to BWilkins' defense when my friend Gabe got too pushy. But at the end of the day BWilkins has no one but himself to blame for all of this. Using another account for the time being is a far cry from stepping down for a while. Had he done the latter I would have respected him. By changing accounts he remains eligible to pick up his tools in six months (or sooner, should he choose to do so.) He has bypassed the need to reapply at RfA, which he IMO would (deservedly) have very little chance of passing. This whole "voluntarily not acting as an admin" thing is a farce and it's shameful. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
There's also the separate problem that the ESAL account seemingly existed for years as an undeclared sock of Bwilkins; and that apparently his use of it was in breach of the sockpuppetry policy and had to be pointed out to him. (If Courcelles hadn't spotted it and pointed it out to him, would Bwilkins have carried on without ever publicly admitting the link?) I'm not sure that another editor going through his past contribs, even if taking some of them out of context, is an excuse for that.
Ordinary editors have to put up with people going through their contribs; the difference is that administrators, unlike ordinary editors, more often have the opportunity to make that harder for people (notice there's a bunch of edits on the ESAL talk page that are no longer viewable by ordinary editors.) I feel uneasy that there are, apparently, so many administrators who have rafts of undisclosed past accounts when going to RfA, socks for all manner of things, vanished editors that later develop cleanstart accounts and all the rest of it. The problem of the ESAL account identity having been hidden is now resolved, but what should be pointed out (for the benefit of others) is that it's not a good example of how to do things. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I think experiencing Wikipedia from the other side of the bit is a good thing, rather than a complete break, as there are more lessons to be learned. This is no different than using his regular account with the bit removed (and the bot was the reason it wasn't convenient) As for sock policy, never confuse the word "should" with "must", as it was intentionally added to be vague, to allow for exceptions. Should this be one? I don't know, but this isn't the proper venue to discover that. And yes, I agree it would have been much better if he would have but it is moot now. If there is a breach of policy, then taking it to appropriate venue is the answer, however, and not a public lashing on Jimmy's page. This would be consistent with how we treat every other editor (ie: fairness). WP:SPI is the proper venue for sock investigations, for example. The whole idea is to get a taste of non-admin life, and this current discussion on Jimmy's page isn't facilitating that, as it is not a neutral board. And it is voluntary, as no one has been barred from seeking resolution at ArbCom. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 19:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Problem is, "non-admin life" sometimes involves having people like Bwilkins scream at one as being "fucking annoying" (or many variations on that theme). If you really think "a taste of non-admin life" is the aim, then some criticism in this forum (non-neutral or otherwise) is as good a way as any to get a little closer to understanding how that feels. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Step 1: Bwilkins acts inappropriately. Step 2: Bwilkins is admonished by Jimbo. Step 3: Bwilkins voluntarily takes a break from his admin account and apologizes. Step 4:Members of the community continue to beat Bwilkins's dead horse. Step 5: ??? Step 6: Profit? Sædontalk 20:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hear, hear.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
This reminds me of Pablo Escobar "serving time" in his mansion. If BWilkins is unwilling to step down and reapply for adminship in six months then he should just continue with his main account. This whole dog and pony show of voluntarily stepping down while keeping his admin tools at the ready is an abomination. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Um, there was not going to be a need for me to re-RFA - not sure where you got that from. dangerouspanda 20:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
And he could have just ignored any of it, forcing everyone to go to ArbCom, where it is very unlikely he would have lost the bit anyway. You don't have to like the current situation to accept it, and more importantly, hope something worthwhile is learned from the experience. I have no desire for vengeance, only for change, and everyone should be fair enough to facilitate that change. Beating him up is only going to make someone dig in, it is human nature, and undermines the situation. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 20:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
If a situation on a website reminds you of Pablo Escobar, you really, seriously need to get a sense of perspective; a generalized version of Point 17 rather nicely fits. Incidentally, as like Bwilkins I'm not trying to hide anything, do you have a problem with this alternate account here? Hall of Jade (お話しになります) 20:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
The horse isn't dead, the horse seems to have been kicking back for all it's worth, while intermittently being disguised as a different horse. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Blade, I do. Why should a reviewer of this thread have to jump through hoops to see that Hall of Jade == BONL? It doesn't add anything to the discussion and wastes other peoples time. Nobody Ent 16:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
If it were up to me I probably wouldn't use an alternate account, but I know better than to have an admin account on an insecure connection; every so often my Internet goes down (c.f. now) and I kick over to 3G, as is what happened in this instance. It also does make it a tiny bit harder to track my contributions; I have a very good memory, but it can and sometimes does fail me, so a couple times I've forgotten to check the right contribs. You'll see I rarely use it, and that would be why. Hall of Jade (お話しになります) 22:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Well the suggestion Nobody Ent was making, is that your sig should make clear (or at least obviously imply) which account you're an alternate of. Which isn't required by policy, but wouldn't interfere with your using the alternate account to deal with insecure connections or whatever else you need it for.
Either way, I'll presume that if you'd used your alternate account extensively to "edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections" or to deliberately interact with people that you'd just had major rows with on your main account, both of which Bwilkins did, then your alternate account would've identified itself on its userpage first - which is what Bwilkins did not do. Apparently he did not do so because of "harassment" by the editor that his alt account then went and deliberately interacted with. Which, to me, doesn't make a lot of sense. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Wow, didn't recognize that this was still on. A couple of major errors in the above: I do not consider the incident with Gabe to be a "major row", period. My interactions with them in ANI and AN3 were minor IMHO, and merely to advise that they were also partly responsible for a situation. That they escalated it is, in the long run, a non-issue (albeit a noisy one). My responsibility as a person, and as an editor, is still to assist where needed. I saw that Gabe was being harassed by another editor, and I stepped in to try and diffuse it. In many ways, that's perfect proof that I hold no grudges, and it proves my own point in the whole situation. Thanks for making my point better than I was myself dangerouspanda 12:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
So who was the editor who was (you claimed) "harrassing" you to such an extent that you needed to use an undeclared sock account, and use it in breach of policy? The assumption widely repeated here is that it was Gabe. If that assumption is incorrect, why did you not correct it? If it's correct, why would one of your first actions with your (at the time) undeclared sock account be to start watching Gabe's page - and indeed then to start editing there without identifying yourself to the person who'd supposedly just been seriously "harassing" you? If action needed to be taken, wouldn't it have been better for you to discreetly notify another administrator? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
As WP:ABF as you continue to be towards me, simply because I dared to honestly critique the behaviour of of someone you once mentored, I will only say this: one of the finest real life mentors I ever met once told me "the hardest thing to do is actually NOT forgiving your harshest critic; the hardest thing is to actually serve them". I could tell you the most incredible story of following this that they once relayed to me, but not in public. Choosing to serve rather than hold grudges forever is healthier both for me, them, and the project as a whole. You should try it sometime. dangerouspanda 18:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Support for EatsShootsAndLeaves position here - move along - nothing to see - Youreallycan 19:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Since he refuses to address genuine concerns, and instead throws out more accusations of bad faith and some psychology 101 feel-good guff as yet more smokescreen, there is indeed nothing more to see here. Congratulations. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, then...

If Bwilkins/ESAL had not come back a week after an issue was over with to accuse me of bad faith, none of this would have happened. If he had been more upfront about why he was not using his admin account (he didn't even have to connect the accounts for all I care, he could have said "Bwilkins has stepped down because of a discussion on User talk:Jimbo Wales) instead of evading the issue, I would not have asked why he didn't carry out the block. If he at any point apologized for calling me a bad faith tendentious editor despite all my article contributions being completely positive and helpful and most of my interactions with users being as cordial as they allow, I would have dropped it.

None of that happened.

I was under the impression that if a user has a behavioral problem that prompts him to step down from his admin account, and that he resumes that behavior a week later, that would be seen as a continuation of the problem and a sign of its severity. I was also under the impression that other editors would only comment if they read what was going on, would not have a knee-jerk reaction that an admin's behavior must be right, and would not defend unrelated behaviors.

I was wrong, and I'm dropping this. I can only hope that:

  • people who pay attention, don't play favorites, and actually have read the policies and guidelines handle this,
  • or that such people do so in the future,
  • or that Bwilkins/ESAL learns to watch his tongue.

Ian.thomson (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I have not resumed any behaviour. I have not attacked anyone, I have not been uncivil - not even sure I've used any "colourful" language. Your continued statements otherwise are unproven, and obviously unprovable. dangerouspanda 21:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
@Dennis-I have no desire to "beat him up". I'll again remind you that I actually came to his defense when Gabe started getting silly. I too have no desire for vengeance. I have a desire to see his deplorable actions as a Wikipedia administrator stopped, and switching accounts for the moment while keeping his tools does not help that problem one iota.
@HoJ-If you are unable to see that I was reminded of the absurdity of the situation rather than Pablo Escobar himself, I question which one of us lacks a sense of perspective. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I got what you were saying, but it seemed within the spirit, if not the letter, of Godwin's Law. I'm as given to hyperbole as anyone, but I try very hard to avoid comparisons to people like Escobar, Idi Amin or my personal favorite, Thích Quảng Đức, because it detracts from the overall message. The rest, I've commented on above; I think this is a case where reasonable people can come to different conclusions, as can a reasonable person and I. Hall of Jade (お話しになります) 21:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I would have been more than happy to stay out of this thread altogether, however, since my name has been specifically mentioned and my actions last month alluded to, I will comment.

  • Clarification - 1) I did not search through 6 years of diffs when I was complaining about Bwilkins' pattern of abusive behavious, I glanced over only his previous three months. 2) I made two edits to Bwilkins talk page after he had reverted me there. One was two minutes after, (which I was likely still typing when the revert occured) and one was 72 minutes after, which was a request for admin assistance that Bwilkins ignored and reverted as vandalism. I was not aware of the reverts when I posted those two posts and as soon as I was made aware of them, I stopped posting there. So I am really not sure how that was hasassment of Bwilkins. 3) Bwilkins never asked me to not post on his talk page, he still hasn't, all he said was: "further posts from you will, indeed, be removed at my leisure." So yeah, I can see now how that is very close to saying "don't post on my talk page", but it is not the same thing, its confusing and it leaves too much room for ambiguity. To me, it meant he would delete anything he wanted or not delete anything he wanted, as he didn't revert everything I posted there. Why not just say, "I'm formally asking you to stop posting to my talk page"? Problem solved. IMO, the vague language set a bit of a trap, where it would not be too unreasonable to assume I might unwittingly post there again. I have no idea whether this was intentional by Bwilkins, I will AGF.
  • Concerns - 1) It is my understanding, per WP:WIAPA that to accuse an editor of harassment without showing evidence in the form of diffs is in itself a personal attack, and thus a form of harassment, i.e. "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." Well today ESAL posted this, which seems to imply that someone is harassing him at this thread, but I see no harassment here today, perhaps someone can point out where the harassment is in this thread, as it seems to be a very subjective notion here, applied liberally by some and conservatively by others. I do not think admins should be throwing around the H-word unless backed by diffs. Admins have much power to cast doubt on an editor and unsubstantiated accusations from them can serve to humiliate and defame a user. 2) If Bwilkins is operating socks inappropriately that should be taken to SPI and dealt with there. 3) I agree in principle with Dennis Brown that Bwilkins need not be publicly lashed here, however, I also fully understand the reluctance to pursue the proper channels when dealing with an abusive admin. I too would have been willing to file a formal report last month had I not been completely convinced that nothing could possibly come from it. The current processes for holding admins accountable are currently not sufficient and are even deemed corrupt by many. Why is it that a non-admin user can be indefed within hours of an AN/I report but to hold an admin accountable we need a special cabal/committee? In the end, Bwilkins' behaviours have awoke a sleeping community to the dangers of absolute power without accountability, and as such the community is currently making efforts to reform the process of de-sysoping. Also, I think the record number of 100% supports at RfA these past two weeks is in some way connected to this issue/discussion. I think we have Bwilkins to indirectly thank for all this. In the end, Bwilkins has publicly ignored Jimbo's suggestion, and as a result he has undermined Jimbo's authority, and ultimately, his own. Afterall, who will be willing to voluntarily follow advice from an admin who refuses to voluntarily follow advice from Jimbo? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
He didn't "undermine Jimbo's authority". Jimbo chose not to exercise his authority. I think the biggest reason that Jimbo is so often thought of as merely a figurehead is the fact that he so rarely exercises his authority. Jimbo stated BWilkins' actions were "grounds for an immediate desysoping". Jimbo holds the power to desysop. Jimbo should have desysoped him. And while I hold Jimbo in high regard, the fact that he didn't put his money where his mouth was has enabled BWilkins to carry on this "admin without his tools" charade. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • This discussion is pointless. If anyone has new evidence of an issue requiring attention, it should be at WP:ANI. I see a couple of links above which, when examined, show no problem. The usual suspects are complaining about power-crazy admins going on rampages, but there is nothing substantive in the complaints. My recommendation would be for the OP to welcome one of life's lesson—not everyone sees things the way you do. If the matter is not dropped, it will eventually boomerang as the community has a limited tolerance for the kind of unhelpful pot-stirring shown here. Johnuniq (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not over.

There's a trio of conservatives who've been WP:BITEing me ever since I made the mistake of creating an account. So far, they've tried to get me blocked on general principles (failed), on misunderstanding a comment as an insult (failed), on lying to admins about 3RR violation (succeeded), and now they're trying to get me blocked as a sock puppet (it'll fail unless the admin has no idea how to use their tools). As I said before, this sort of behavior is why Wikipedia cannot attract and retain editors. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Wait, I missed two things. One of the reported me on ANI for daring to leave notices on his talk page informing him that he was edit-warring. That was laughed out. Also, I've tried to use DRN, but the process has been subverted by these people voting as a block. So, yes, more biting, and that doesn't include all of the borderline incivility. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, if this is happening to you. Might I suggest you seek advice at the WP:Teahouse for new users, or file a report at WP:WQA for etiquette assistance, they might be able to assist you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Alan, the reason I'm posting here is that I don't believe there currently exists a mechanism for handling this sort of problem. Since they operate best under a lack of scrutiny, I'm driving more scrutiny at them by advertising their actions here. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Have you tried the above? The Teahouse can offer guidance and support, if you are being unfairly singled out; the WQA is more formal and may get a discussion going between you all, in a moderating forum. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll tell you what: It would be ungracious of me to come here, share my problems and then ignore the well-meaning advice I receive. As skeptical as I am of WP:WQA as the solution, I'm going to give it a try. Thanks. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Alan, I followed your suggestion. While it's not officially over, it's looking like WQA is not going to do much of anything. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be the only editor who agrees with your arguments. If everyone else states that you're wrong, you might consider the possibility that you are wrong, rather than that there is a conspiracy against you. I'm not expressing an opinion in the underlying dispute, even though I've removed his edits from time to time as violating WP:NPOV. I don't seem to be one of the "three conservatives" in question. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Then again, if you were to actually look at the disputes, you would find that I'm not the only editor who agrees with my comments. But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of insulting generalizations. What could be more productive than piling on? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
It appears to me that you did violate 3RR. It also appears that you edit like a banned editor. But there should be a mechanism for dealing with your complaints if they were true, and there doesn't seem to be any such mechanism. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
This may shock you, but how it appears to you and how it is turn out not to be identical. In particular, the block claimed 4RR, but it only hit 3RR, and then only if you disregard BLP. If you read WP:3RR, you'll see that "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert". And, in fact, the reason stated by Lionel and Dan, and accepted by Ed, for denying the WP:BLP exemption was that I hit 4RR. This reason is false, but they kept the block despite this, looking for another excuse instead of taking the more difficult step of admitting to error.
Speaking of admitting to error, I've was recently accused of being someone I'm not, and not a single person apologized for their mistake. If you want to pile on with another CheckUser claim, then by all means do so. Don't worry; I won't expect you to apologize after my name is cleared. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

All I can offer you is sympathy, if it is as you say. Some editors are really bad at dealing with others (especially with their often ridiculous threats of dire wiki consequences, usually with something about how horrible you are, and how your edits are in all ways bannable). Perhaps you have done somethings wrong (like something that looks like 3RR). Perhaps you have done somethings right. Perhaps you want to do things right and have gone about it the wrong way. There is little to be done where an apparent consensus is against you. Just note your objections, stay reasonable, keep your cool, and ultimately move on to where you can improve things. If you are 'right' chances are one day consensus will be in your favor, down the road. As you go just note in your comments the incivility you have suffered, and think that one day, if they keep that up their own reputation for bad behavior won't help them. Pick your places to take a stand, be careful, persistent, and try to see the other guys point, no matter how poorly they are making it - if nothing else, it will help you argue with them better, or reason with others who are more reasonable. (Also, if you are new tryout the Teahouse). Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Let's review, shall we? So far Still-24-45-42-125 has informed us of the following:
The WP:DRN Process is the problem.[18] Not Still-24-45-42-125. Still-24-45-42-125 is never the problem.
The first of two dispute resolution volunteers to review the case is the problem.[19] Not Still-24-45-42-125.
"The problem is with Wikipedia."[20]
The admins at WP:AN/EW are the problem.[21]
The admin who blocked him is the problem.[22]
The second admin who declined his unblock request is the problem.[23]
The third administrator who reviewed the case and agreed with the first two is the problem.[24]
The second of two dispute resolution volunteers to review the case is the problem.[25]
All of WP:DRN is the problem.[26]
Also see:
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Still-24-45-42-125 reported by User:Lionelt (Result: 24h)
User talk:Still-24-45-42-125#Edit warring at Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012
Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance#It feels like a pile-on
Note: I am not listing the places where Still-24-45-42-125 says that certain other editors are the problem because they actually are a large part of the problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Guy, DRN is, by and large, a farce. All you did is take a !VOTE and ignore policy. You did nothing to encourage actual resolution of the dispute. I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings as a DRN volunteer, but as an unhappy customer, let me tell you that DRN might not be the problem, but it's certainly not the solution. The rest of your comment was a fine example of victim-blaming, which is also not part of the solution. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

On second glance, the problem is your list. It's intended to give the false impression that I'm always complaining about how people harm me. The reality is that some these aren't even about me (like the one about Wikipedia being the problem) and many of these are a single item stretched out (the bad block and the brokeness of DRN are just two items, no matter how many times you repeat different parts of them). In short, you gave a misleading summary, and that's definitely problematic because it violated WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. But, hey, since when did we ever actually enforce written policies when it's more fun to make stuff up as we go along, eh? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Your claims that I misbehaved while working as a dispute resolution volunteer on the WP:DRN case you filed would be more credible if not for the fact that you recently accused three admins at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and another dispute resolution volunteer of misbehavior. What are the odds that we are all misbehaving and that you alone are without fault? You are having a lot of conflict with a wide variety of people. Perhaps you should ask yourself what the common factor in all of those conflicts is. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
No, I claimed that the DRN process is flawed and that your efforts failed to rise above those flaws. By its nature, it lends itself to mistaking vote-stacking for consensus. By its nature, it does not address the underlying dispute. This nature can be fought successfully -- I've seen it done -- but you did not do so. And when I pointed it out, you took it very, very personally and have been overtly hostile to me ever since. This sort of lack of neutrality is unacceptable in anyone claiming to mediate. Your frenzied attempt to blame me for everything is shameful. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Everyone who's edited a controversial article knows how this works. Someone adds a clearly untrue or misleading statement. It's reverted. Repeat. It's added for a third time. No problem, as the rule is only for reverts, not adds. It's reverted again and that person is blocked. If it's discussed on the Talk page, the existing partisans achieve a 'consensus' regardless of facts. Requests for various levels of arbitration are either ignored or are handled by someone with five minutes to spare who refuses to look at the statements under dispute, claiming he doesn't have the knowledge or time to determine if they're true or not, and facts are subordinate to rules. What unusual in this case is that traditionally blocks for political articles happen much closer to an election, and don't expire until after the election. At that point, some Admin says this perennial problem really should be addressed after the election. This of course never happens. The Project for these articles is ignored. Fast forward to the next election. Rinse, repeat. All these articles should permanently include the template at the top that warns the reader of bias. (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Again, thank you for your advice. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

This is horrible

This is horrible. Wikipedia's article on Earl Barrett was used to start an internet untruth in which Dave Benson Phillips was dragged into and Wikipedia's reputation was damaged.[27] An editor has made numerous edits to the Dave Benson Phillips article since January 13, 2012,[28] the latest 5 August 2012 edit being to continue to propagate that internet untruth.[29] Would some of you with tools fix the page history of all the involved articles and bring a final fix the other behavior/content issues. Also, given that the problem originated with Wikipedia and continue on through this day in Wikipedia, I think we owe Earl Barrett, Dave Benson Phillips, and the Duchess of York an apology for allowing this to go on unchecked as long as it has. Thank you. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

  • There's millions of articles. We rely on volunteers like you to watch them for issues dangerouspanda 19:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Increasing. Decreasing. John lilburne (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Currently sorting out the Dave Benson Phillips article. :) WilliamH (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • No, Uzma Gamal. RMasters3434 is not the one perpetuating the hoaxes. Xe is the one attempting, but badly, to fight the hoaxes, where some vandals have been repeatedly falsely claiming Benson Phillips to be dead (amongst other things, and the only one of which I'm going to repeat) on Wikipedia (as well as on YouTube and elsewhere). The account is very probably Robin Masters, Benson Phillips' manager/assistant as documented on the WWW site for Chester Benson Productions. User talk:RMasters3434 currently comprises five boilerplate notices, two from robot accounts, and practically zero communication in human form. Instead of wailing on Jimbo's user talk page and also not communicating with M. Masters, you could go there and explain the right way to write an article that counters these hoaxes. If you think that apologies are in order, start with one from you to Robin Masters.

    I'd explain things to M. Masters myself, but amongst other things I've been quite busy dealing with such things as a seven-year-old article that knocked the Siegenthaler incident into a cocked hat.

    Uncle G (talk) 11:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Correct. I have reached out to RMasters3434 (talk · contribs). The problem is that he has unfortunately been replacing unverifiable information with unverifiable information: fighting fire with fire, so to speak. So it's sadly not surprising he hasn't been getting anywhere, and the "we need reliable sources" comments on the talk page did not adequately reflect the need for verifiability. Yesterday I wiped all of the unreferenced material per WP:BLP, and am gradually introducing reliably sourced stuff. WilliamH (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Chavez Article

That article has 29 link backs to a English blog citing state run media and loose trash media pieces to loosely cloak it. I can't believe how horrendously the Hugo Chavez article has been subverted, but it has forever colored my view of wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JessicaSkitka (talkcontribs) 23:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Since the Hugo Chávez article currently has 364 reference citations, it might help if you would clarify which blog you mean. More generally your complaint is so vague that it is impossible to figure out what part of the article you don't like. Looie496 (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm guessing that she, like many people (including the person whose talkpage we're using) see the article isn't so much a biography of Chavez as a hagiography of Chavez. There are some pretty glaring omissions, as can be seen from perusing Talk:Hugo Chávez and the archives. I've never edited the article myself, but I remember reading it and thinking it strange that certain things were missing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not a Central America expert but I do know my fair share about the Soviet 1930s and thus can recognized a hagiography when I see it. The Chavez piece is not a hagiography, don't use that word. It's flagged for POV, continue to discuss and improve through the normal editorial process. I'd give it a "fairly okay" rating, at a glance, not having checked the sourcing. Carrite (talk) 02:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Do more than a glance. It's not at all ok. I've kept an eye on the article, on and off, for several years. It continues to be ridiculous. There is a lot of information in there sourced - as our anonymous ip says - to highly questionable POV (and as far as I can tell, "front organization") websites, and a lot of information blatantly excluded on ridiculous grounds. It needs attention from people who care more about the facts of reality that the defense of a controversial and charismatic political figure.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
South America, not Central. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I too know a hagiography when I see it; setting aside the medieval ones I've read about Charlemagne and St. Patrick, I do a lot of adminning in places rife with people attempting to push them. The Chavez article isn't anything like that, and you'll note I didn't outright say I agree with it (though there are some clearly major omissions, which I can describe if you like, I've dealt with a lot worse), but it's still problematic. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
"A fairly okay bio with significant omissions" is probably close to the mark. Carrite (talk) 04:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree. Dig deeper. It's really bad.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
"A well-phrased POV-push with some gestures toward neutrality" is how I'd describe it. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 12:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The point is not how to describe it, but how to fix it. It's tagged with the disputed neutrality template, which should have alerted Jessica to its contents. Why would anyone judge Wikipedia on the basis of a tagged article? I would think creating a list of the "omissions" on the Talk page would be the next step. (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should not have a Criticism/controversy section, but at the moment, the article reads like a long Facebook profile.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Though the Persondata says August 8... Dru of Id (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, it's August 7. --Vincent Liu (something to say?) 05:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

₫ӓ₩₳ Talk to Me. Email Me. 11:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Chocolate celebration cake.png
Have a slice! benzband (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


Hi. Happy birthday.

Jimbo, I watched a video the other day, wherein you said the motivation of Wikipedia editors is sweet: the desire to spread knowledge. I agree. That's the charm of this place, the altruism. But it just occurred to me, could you also spread the word, emphasise even, that Wikipedia is the product of argument; good argument on most important articles?

Our intelligent, knowledgeable and altruistic readers may be more inclined to contribute to the project if they realised to what degree reason governs the content here. Can you point out that Wikipedia is a forum that decides the truth about a lot of things for a large part of humanity, and that they had better be prepared to argue well and bring only the best evidence scholarship has to offer if they want to join that argument? I'd like to see you publicly provoking/chastising/inspiring scientists and scholars, and knowledgeable amateurs, about diving in and getting it right. Perhaps you could also point out that, once an important article is neutral, pertinent, comprehensive, understandable, and well-sourced, it usually stays that way, so good work they contribute will have some longevity.

Above, they're talking about bringing into being a supreme court of Wikipedia, to replace you as ArbCom's court of appeal. I'd prefer you keep that role. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Ashley van Haeften

The banning of Ashley van Haeften (User:Fae) has now broke through into the mainstream media, delivering another black eye to WP. "Chairman of Wikipedia charity banned after pornography row."

Why has Fae not done the right thing and resigned his position as head of Wikimedia UK following the decision of ArbCom in his case? Does he not understand politics? Is he in denial???

Fae — for god's sake, do the right thing for the good of The Project. Carrite (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Ow noes - major national press reports - infamy - increased profile of the arbitration result reflect negatively in real life on the user and in turn on the Wikipedia project, especially the Wikimedia UK in relation to the subjects extremely high status and profile in that org . National high profile press articles linking Wikipedia UK's charity status to pornography issues for which its chair has been banned from editing the central Wikipedia project are a sure net loss to charitable contributions and ongoing status. - Youreallycan 06:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I sweated. The title couldn't be more misleading. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 06:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Let's be blunt, this is the result of an ongoing campaign against sex-related content by the likes of Peter Cohen, JN466, Peter Damian (who's not only banned here but is physically banned from attending WMUK events) and various cranks and nutters on Wikipediocracy/Wikipedia Review who fantasise about getting Wikipedia shut down. Having failed to persuade the community here, they're trying to bully and pressure Wikipedia through external means such as political lobbying - even making anti-Fae submissions to the UK parliament - and now evidently someone has been shopping stories to the right-wing press. No doubt the people behind this story are trying to tout it around other outlets as well. It's deplorable and an utter betrayal of the spirit of friendly cooperation that Wikipedians are supposed to operate in. Put simply, disputes about Wikipedia's content should be resolved on-wiki, not escalated into off-wiki smear campaigns against specific individuals. Prioryman (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • That is fairly blunt, Prioryman, especially since you aren't backing up your allegations with any evidence. I think you may be committing a fairly egregious personal attack. JN466 and Peter Cohen, in particular, are editors in good standing. Cla68 (talk) 08:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • as we are being blunt Prioryman... Fae is banned here, so has no direct avenue for response. So I will keep this short. It's deplorable and an utter betrayal of the spirit of friendly cooperation that Wikipedians are supposed to operate in.; Ashley violated this spirit first - in nasty and vindictive ways, for which there is amply evidence. Which is why ultimately, the Arbcom was raised. Although there has been off-wiki harrassment, there has also been reasonable criticism and efforts to bring him to account - made difficult to the squirming, circling of wagons and general evasivness of Fae and his supporters. This recent coverage really stems from the fact that Ashley and the WMUK board are staunchly trying to weather the storm - in the face of serious concern amongst WMUK members. If you are looking for a bully, you need only look at one person. --Errant (chat!) 08:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
At least two, actually.VolunteerMarek 08:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
After reading the recent discussions, at EN and at the "WP criticism" pages (actually they contain more personal attacks then criticism), it indicates to me that Prioryman is writing the right thing. But since Jimbos talk page got one point of interest for those "critics", as we can see them pop up right after every such rightful comment, it doesn't make sense to me to elaborate the details. It would be like reciting Faust while having annoyed cobras around yourself. In my eyes it is shameful. --/人 ‿‿ 人\ 署名の宣言 09:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • News headline has positive spin "banned after pornography": That Telegraph article is extremely positive, in terms of "family values", to help Wikipedia's reputation as fighting against attitudes which conflict with society's norms. Considering how liberal many societies already have become, any such press is a positive spin to show the leadership of WP actively restraining, or banning, excessive promotion or links to pornography. I regret that any person has to be tied to a strong demonstration that WP actively fights improper activities, but the headline will do wonders to reassure wary people who have "heard rumors" that Wikipedia management actively promotes porn, instead: "Chairman of Wikipedia charity banned after pornography row". -Wikid77 (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
If you look closely at the article, then you can see little Larry Sangers constructing and organizing the letters and words. --/人 ‿‿ 人\ 署名の宣言 09:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The failed encyclopedist Sanger features prominently in the recently published Fox article too, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if he's involved in pushing the hostile briefing against Fae. Prioryman (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Will you quit it with the personal attacks AND the BLP violations? Last I checked Sanger was still a living person and BLP applies this page as it does to any other. And btw, you're not exactly helping yourself here.VolunteerMarek 19:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • And one of the harassers subsequently went and wrote an attack article (now deleted) on Fae. Can't say i'm really surprised. SilverserenC 09:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, the question of whether Mr. van Haeften satisfies the general notability guide would be a rather interesting one to put to the test. Why don't you give us your Article Rescue Squadron-oriented opinion on this, Seren. You and the ARS crew has argued fervently to retain articles on women with large breasts fired from their job, flight attendants who yell at the passengers, a woman who fell into mail fountains, a girl who hiccups too much, the husband of a Republican presidential candidate, a dead cat with helicopter blades attached to its paws, and so on. Now we have an individual who is the chair of a registered charity, Wikimedia UK, who now appears in multiple reliable sources because of this incident. Surely that merits some consideration for article inclusion? Tarc (talk) 12:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
      • WP:BLP1E as you well know. You would be yelling that from the rooftops if it was about anyone other than Fae. Prioryman (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Perhaps. But the boilerplate ARS defense to BLP1E is to declare the event to be notable. So, perhaps someone wil ltake a stab at 2012 WMUK Chairman Firing Controversy, or some such. Tarc (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
          • Indeed that would make sense, if this encyclopedia were still living up to its principles. Wnt (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
            • It's impossible to write up such an article without violating Wikipedia review's copyright. Count Iblis (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • - A good faith position to take here is to accept that there are many supporters of the family of Wikipedia projects that are concerned about the unfiltered access to porn that the project is currently offering - I predict here and now, as I did in Fae's case - this issue will end in a train crash for Wikipedia if the good faith concerns are not addressed. - Youreallycan 12:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
As long people spread bad faith messages like this, it will surely divide the community. --/人 ‿‿ 人\ 署名の宣言 12:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Where is the bad faith? - My comment is simply my personal prediction on what will happen if this problem is not addressed - Clearly the community is divided on this - as it is on all difficult issues but that is no excuse not to do the hard work to address users good faith concerns, - Youreallycan 12:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
But image filter arguments are a tad off topic here for this thread. The Telegraph may have tried to link this story to our porn debate, but the two are quite distinct. Remember Ash's response to criticism of his editing of Gay pornstars was to withdraw from that topic. If this was really about porn that withdrawl would have ended the matter. My view as someone who has argued for an image filter and even designed one option, is that we can get consensus for an image filter providing we keep that debate focussed on creating a system whereby those who want to opt out of seeing certain things here can do so without censoring what others see. ϢereSpielChequers 12:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) - Personally imo to protect the projects broader mission , if there is no support for a content filter I would split the pornographic content away from the charitable status part of the project completely - creating a totally independent Pornographic/Adult content Wiki. Youreallycan 13:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The problem is the sharper the divide between what you want to define as porn and what you don't the harder it is to get consensus. Luckily in my experience there aren't that many who object in principle to a genuinely optional filter, providing that you can tune it to your personal boundaries as to what you do or don't want to see. ϢereSpielChequers 13:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
So long as it can be bypassed by page/image then the filter can be coarse and block a wide range of images. For example I may have nudity and greater selected, and browse to a page on Rubens the images may initially be blanked out (if the filter is extemely coarse), but so long as I have a simple method to reveal then everything is fine. If I find that I'm always having to 'reveal' then I may change the fileter setting. John lilburne (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I suspect that even a filter won't put an end to the porn debates. After all (gasp) think of the children.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Sad but true, see my paragraph below. --/人 ‿‿ 人\ 署名の宣言 13:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
It's alright to rubbish the "think of the children" argument if you make it clear in fundraisers and publicity materials that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for adults. But Wikipedia wants to have it both ways, presenting itself as childsafe and free of risky content in fundraisers, and a boon to the little girl in Africa or Brazil and kids doing homework everywhere. Wikimedia wants the money of people who think of the children, it just doesn't want to do anything for children itself. It's hypocritical, isn't it? --JN466 14:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
@John Lilburne. One divide amongst those who want a filter would appear to be between those who don't see the need for the complexity of a filter setting and those who see that as essential. Me I'm not bothered whether someone would want to set the filter at swimsuit or what in the UK we'd call topshelf. As long as the setting of the filter is personal to the individual and I can set the filter where it suits me I'm OK, the problem is that some people want a nice simple filter that has one single definition of porn. I suspect they assume that the definition that we'd end up with would be the one that works best for them. ϢereSpielChequers 16:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
@Youreallycan: I did not refer to your comment as a bad faith assumption. I meant the article, it's dubious headline and it's superficial content.
I would not like the idea to create an adult Wiki. There are many topics that fall under both categories and it strongly depends in which context the articles are seen or used. Violence or even sexual depiction might not be a problem if pupils (children or children close to be adults) use them for educational reasons, with the necessary guidance. In such a case you would barely see any complaints and people are happy to use our resources. But of course you will find the opposite opinions as well. A good example is the solution represented by the San Francisco Public Library. They increased the privacy of the user, but did not start filtering, because they follow the Library Bill Of Rights. I wish that Wikipedias community and the WMF could be as wise as well and use them as a reference. --/人 ‿‿ 人\ 署名の宣言 13:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Where is that guidance supposed to come from? If you look up caning, you get a BDSM navigation template with links to illustrated articles on tit torture and cock and ball torture (sexual practice). If you look up gel bracelet, or fuck, you get similar navigation templates leading to articles on the most bizarre, rare or even entirely made-up kinds of kink. How do children tell what is a normal, common sexual practice and what isn't? Wikipedia sure doesn't tell them the prevalence, and the articles are written by practitioners. And if you look up koto, a musical instrument to most people, the first link on the disambig page is to a pornstar bio. --JN466 14:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong. But i wonder how you navigate through a library or the Internet. Do you always start with a BDSM term if you want too look for a book about cocking? --/人 ‿‿ 人\ 署名の宣言 14:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC) PS: Do you expect to look at a flower if you click on the link "Hikaru Koto, former porn star" inside koto?
I'm always amused by these arguments. In eight years as a Wikipedian, I can't recall ever accidentally finding porn. A lot of the complaints read to me as "I went looking for porn, I found it, and now I'm offended!" It is kind of like searching for a book on the occult then claiming the local library encourages witchcraft. Resolute 14:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I also can't ever recall accidentally finding porn on WP. But, then again, I'm never not looking for it. Formerip (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Kids look for it. It's absolutely natural. And what they find should have some educational value and present things in context, rather than being merely the how-to guide and fap stash of the local tit torture or zoophilia fan. --JN466 14:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Of course they look for it, and let me tell you, there are many places to find much better porn than Wikipedia. We're the Sears Catalogue of it, not the Hustler. Your argument there seems to be that the articles need improvement more than anything. Give it a crack, eh? ;) Resolute 14:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The Sears Catalogue has never had 100s of gifs of some guy wanking. Personally if some kid goes looking for porn and finds porn that is one thing, the bigger issue is when they didn't go looking for porn and the porn comes to them. That normally happens when someone searches for multimedia, which is why 'toothbrush' is an issue. As for the articles they are abominable. Take the fisting article as an example: who does it, can I expect my partner to want to do it to me, or me to them, how hard do I punch? John lilburne (talk) 06:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm not up on all the complaints. What is the problem with Toothbrush? As far as Fisting goes, I put anything there in the same category of the links someone finds from Fuck...and I don't see where your specific questions about the practice have anything to do with the article about it here... --OnoremDil 06:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The claim is that such articles as fisting provide useful educational material. Whereas in fact the articles are so gutted of context that they are little more than an illustrated urban dictionary. John lilburne (talk) 08:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, thanks for making clear that you had no idea what you were talking about in your preceding post. I'd like to see a cooperation between sex education experts and Wikipedia, to get Wikipedia's sexology articles to a level where they might begin to make some educational sense. I'd consider that more important than GLAM outreach. That's what I'd like to see a Wikimedia UK chairman do, rather than uploading bondage pictures of himself in an exercise of narcissism. --JN466 14:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
There is currently an multi-wikiproject effort to get Birth control up to Good Article status so we can start translating improvements to some of the wikipedias with relatively large numbers of readers per editors. Please join in and help. (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Do you know how silly you sound? I had to look at the caning article 3 times looking for that template before noticing it hiding out requiring me to find it and click on it to open those options up. "If you look up gel bracelet, or fuck, you get similar navigation templates leading to articles on the most bizarre, rare or even entirely made-up kinds of kink." Or even entirely made-up kink? That's the point of the box and you're making it part of the argument. I'd never heard of the gel bracelet 'controversy' myself, but if it's considered notable enough to be included, I guess the box fits. Please be specific about what Fuck links to that you don't think someone searching for FUCK doesn't want to see or find. Seriously. --OnoremDil 15:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm talking first and foremost about everything in the Sexual slang template. Topics like Pearl_necklace_(sexuality), felching, rusty trombone, saddlebacking, glory hole, etc. Many of these articles are poorly sourced, and poorly written, focusing on mentions in pop culture rather than their relationship to and meaning within human sexuality. Psychological insight is usually completely absent. Some of them, like the pearl necklace article, could be converted into redirects (in this case, to mammary intercourse) without loss of encyclopedic value. As encyclopedia articles, they are little better than Urban Dictionary. The whole approach smacks of a curiosity cabinet designed to appeal to Beavis and Butt-head. These articles are well visited, with tens or hundreds of thousands of views each month. Most of them are missed opportunities falling far short of what an encyclopedia should aspire to. Hence the idea to get in some academic help. We've done it for things like public policy and Monmouthpedia; here is a set of high-traffic articles that could desperately do with some improvement and TLC. --JN466 18:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
From Pearl_necklace_(sexuality) - A pearl necklace is a slang term referring to a sexual act and from Human sexuality - Human sexuality is the capacity to have erotic experiences and responses.. Enquiring minds would like to know whether this is something that usually happens between partners, will my girlfriend/boyfriend expect me to do that to him/her? My partner doesn't want me to do that is he/she weird? John lilburne (talk) 06:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
So the articles are fine, but we need to include information about how people should figure out whether or not their partner is interested. Something along the lines of what? Nothing about these types of things are cut and dry. There is no possible way to say what is and isn't acceptable between a set of consenting partners. When is the right time to kiss my date? When is the right time to... --OnoremDil 07:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
It seems that this encyclopaedia has singularly failed to educate at least one person about the erotic. John lilburne (talk) 08:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Has WMUK taken legal advice as to whether Mr. van Haeften remains a fit and proper person to run a UK charity?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
This text is going to be a bit messy but here is the advice we work to from the Charity Commission with a short summary above:

Charity Commission guidelines are very clear. Financial impropriety and conflicts of interest, bankruptcy or convictions are the main obstacles.

Official guidance:

E1 Can anyone be appointed as a trustee?

Symbol showing legal requirementThe short answer:

No. There are legal restrictions on who may be a charity trustee. Additional restrictions may be contained in the charity's governing document. Before appointing a new trustee, the trustee board must make sure that the appointment meets the requirements of the charity's governing document and the law.

In more detail:

When preparing to appoint a new trustee, the trustee board must ensure that the person is qualified to act as a trustee. No-one under the age of 18 can be a trustee of a charitable trust or unincorporated association. However 16 is the minimum age for the appointment of a director, and so, a trustee of a charitable company. Further information on young people as trustees can be found on the Publications and Guidance page on our website.

Some people are disqualified by law from acting as trustees, including anyone described in sections 178 - 180 of the Charities Act 2011. This includes:

anyone who has an unspent conviction for an offence involving deception or dishonesty;

anyone who is an undischarged bankrupt;

anyone who has been removed from trusteeship of a charity by the Court or the Commissioners for misconduct or mismanagement; and

anyone under a disqualification order under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.

It is normally an offence to act as a trustee while disqualified unless we have given a waiver under section 181 of the Charities Act 2011, (there are some special provisions applying to the administration of charitable companies). Further information about disqualifications and waivers of disqualification can be found in our staff guidance OG41 and OG42 which can be accessed via the Publications and Guidance page on our website.

In addition to the disqualifications detailed in the Charities Act, which apply to all types of charities, the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 disqualifies certain individuals from holding a range of positions in children's charities, which includes charity trusteeship. We do not have the authority to give a waiver for this type of disqualification.

The appointment of a trustee must be in accordance with the charity's governing document, which will set out procedures for appointing new trustees, including any restrictions, such as a maximum number of trustees or an age limit. It is important that trustees follow these procedures. If they don't, this could result in the appointment being invalid. If the governing document contains provisions which prevent certain people from acting as charity trustees, we cannot grant a waiver under section 181 of the Charities Act 2011 as we cannot override the provisions within a governing document.

E2 How should charities check on prospective trustees?

The short answer:

Before appointing a trustee, the trustee board should obtain a declaration from the prospective trustee that they are not disqualified. It should also consult official registers of disqualified persons. We strongly recommend that charities working with vulnerable people, with positions which are eligible to obtain Disclosures from the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB), should do so. In more detail:

As a minimum, the trustee board should ask new trustees to sign a declaration to confirm that they are not disqualified from acting as a charity trustee.

Trustees can also make use of official registers which record the names of people who are disqualified from acting as charity trustees. These include:

(1) The Individual Insolvency Register maintained by the Insolvency Service, which contains details of:

bankruptcies that are either current or have ended in the last three months; current individual voluntary arrangements and fast track voluntary arrangements; and current bankruptcy restriction orders and undertakings.

Searches of the Register can be made on the Insolvency Service website, by visiting your local Official Receiver's office, or by post or fax. You can find contact details for the Insolvency Service in section H.

(2) The register of disqualified directors maintained by Companies House. Searches of the register can be made on the Companies House website,

(3) The register which we maintain of all persons who have been removed as a charity trustee either by us or by an Order of the High Court since 1 January 1993. A copy of the register is kept in each of the Commission's offices.

Trustees of charities working with children or vulnerable adults should also make additional, more detailed checks, by obtaining a Disclosure from the CRB. We strongly recommend that trustees of charities that can obtain CRB checks take advantage of this option, to ensure both that the person they wish to appoint as a trustee is eligible and to ensure the safety of the charity's beneficiaries. There are some charities that must carry out these checks. You can find more information in section F6.

Further information:

A model declaration form for prospective trustees is available on our website on the About Charities page. Sample declaration of eligibility forms for trustees are also produced by a number of other organisations, including the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) You can find more information about the CRB and CRB Disclosures in section F.

Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 11:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The story appeared on Fox News (Fifty Shades of Wikipedia) an hour ago. From the article: Wikimedia UK chief executive Davies defended the foundation on July 31, writing that meeting to ban Van Haeften was far from secret, as the Telegraph described it, and labelling the ban a sanction at one point. I had read on Wikipedia Talk pages about 'Fae', but I had NO IDEA he was on the Wikimedia UK Board until now. Of course that's an entirely different situation! Just what does Davies consider to be 'transparent'?! (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I was at the last two Wikimedia UK AGMs. Both were in Public and Fae was elected both times. His candidacy was not in anyway a secret from the UK chapter or those who follow it. ϢereSpielChequers 17:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
i checked the dates. I assume no one had a TARDIS. (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Annual Conference 12 May 2012
Case Opened on 01:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Case Closed on 22:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

If the Telegraph and Fox News are making noise about this, then that proves that it is good to have Fae stay in his current position. Perhaps ArbCom should think of resigning. The WMF can desysop Admins here, so they could close down ArbCom and reinstate Fae as an editor here. Count Iblis (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That's some twisted logic right there. High-profile, mainstream news media outlets have now taken notice of a WMUK chair being banned from the Wikipedia, the organization that his organization was created to assist. Somehow that proves that Fae was right, Arbcom was wrong, and the bans/resigns should be swapped? Tarc (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I trust he was being sarcastic. Or was stoned. However, the media attention was only a matter of time, especially given the salacious angle. That's why I'm hoping damage control has been contemplated.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
At the end of the day, Wikipedia is just a website, and neither The Telegraph nor Fox News know anything about how ArbCom really works. If they knew they would perhaps write something about the amateurish way we do Arbitration here, or they would simply ignore any issues related to Wikipedia/Wikimedia that are not related to problematic content. Count Iblis (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
If we've lost FoxNews, we've lost Middle America. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Not as far as I can tell. Jon Davies's replies to me suggested that they are following a line that it is impertinent to question poor little Fae just because he was being censured by Arbcom. (I started the correspondence before the ban motion.) If the professional charity runner isn't properly warning volunteer trustees of the trouble they are creating for the charity, then it is hardly surprising that they are taking such bum decisions. Now, is someone there going to have the sense to close the van Haeften chapter before the fundraiser starts and the press can talk about where the money raised goes? The British press won't be dedicating half their space to the Olympics come the Autumn.
As for your original question, they may have taken advice on whether they can be forced to get rid of their Chair, a very different question form whether it is wise to get rid of their Chair. Some people on the Wikimedia UK mailing are talking about getting the signatures together for an EGM about Fae. I suspect that the officials will do their best to obstruct anyone anti-Fae from being able to mail the whole membership and will even then rely on the in-crowd being able to send enough members to an EGM to keep him despite critical votes. Think of all those banks etc that have voted through substantial bonuses for their board despite shareholder and public complaints.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately an EGM is not an option as you need a board member to call one; and that's a non-starter apparently. A number of other options are being actively explored. --Errant (chat!) 18:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Peter, you've done enough damage already with your campaign. Isn't it time to stop? Prioryman (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Damage I've done? Six months ago I wrote this:
Again, I have mentioned both on the WMUK mailing list and to Jon Davies face to face that there is a real threat to the charity's reputation if someone were to write to Private Eye about some of the earlier accounts' contributions and, indeed, some of Fae's contributions on Commons while he has been a trustee of WMUK. Greg Kohs online articles aren't taken seriously by anyone. Coverage in PE would be hugely more damaging. That potential danger is removed the moment that Fae stops holding a position with them.
I have also mentioned on this page how Dan Murphy has said repeatedly that he would write an article about van Haeften. Okay, it was the Telegraph and not the Eye and it was Christopher Williams and not Murphy, but van Haeften, Davies and any Wikimedia UK trustees who watched the mailing list or the RFC or this page had all be warned by me that Fae was a PR disaster in the making. Instead of listening to me, they promoted Fae and they did not force him out when Arbcom found against him.
If people are repeatedly warned about the tree that is going to fall down in the next big storm, then it those people's fault when the tree hits their house. Not the builders' or that of the people who planted the tree or the people who gave the warning. Even now van Haeften has not resigned as a WMUK trustee and is still Chair of the WCA. Despite his and his supporters' complaints, he isn't doing anything to stop further press reports about him. He's leaving himself open to any of the numerous people he has abused going to the press with more revelations. And WMUK are leaving themselves open to further stories come the fundraiser. And if WMUK's fundraising is hit by further press stories, it will be their own fault for still not dealing with the van Haeften problem properly.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
They won't stop. They've barely begun. As I have said before, the failure to do the right thing in the Fae case represented the point where Wikipedia stops leaking and starts sinking. Right now, at , "banned" Greg Kohs is gloating about his unblockability, right here, right now, on this talk page, after apparently putting User:Scottywong in his place as accompanied by a few A Few Good Men style requests for non-harassment. The mainstream news is printing Peter Cohen's talking points. Now Fae, who did so much good work for WMF, is the one on the outside. The question now is not how to save Wikipedia, but how to react to what will presumably be a fairly gradual demise in the most useful way. People still want the things that they'll be censoring, such as the truth, and this creates opportunity. But I fear that Wikipedia will follow the same trajectory as Encyclopedia Dramatica; that what survives after a betrayal from within will be only a battle-hardened fragment. Wnt (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Wikipediocracy is quite teh funny thing though, don't you think? Right now their front page has an article with the byline "E. A. Barbour", yattering on about "a white or Asian male... with a failing marriage (if he’s not gay, which many of them are)". Maybe this kind of thing goes down well with Fox or the Telegraph or ED readers, but there is probably a civilised part of the world that isn't much impressed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Fox news article posted link to ED article. Should you consider banning Fox News reporter for creating an attack page on an external web site? Wait a minute, he has no account on Wikipedia. Let's ban Larry Sanger instead. D: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I assume that the Telegraph and Fox articles have resulted in a few more journalists and interested observers putting Jimbo's talk page on their watchlists. So, I hope you all continue with the tone of this conversation. It's great stuff for the credibility of Wikipedia and its associated projects. Cla68 (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I think we're fairly safe in terms of the probability that the journalist in question is engaged in any actual research. Formerip (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
+1 SilverserenC 00:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
+1 The whole text reads like copy and paste. --/人 ‿‿ 人\ 署名の宣言 11:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of Fae's activities with regards to the porn issue, which I personally don't really care about, wasn't he actually banned for trying to sidestep ArbCom for trying to close the Pandora's box of his linked accounts? WRT the AC case, to be honest, I'm much more concerned about the fact that AC can pass a finding of fact that someone has made a serious violation of the harassment policy, yet not ban them, especially when one arbitrator notes that said user has done the same thing before. We've gone a long way since you could be indeffed for editing the same pages as another user. I don't know which situation I like more. Sceptre (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom used unreliable third hand hearsay evidence to reach the conclusion that Fae was not honest with them. Also, no editor here is without flaws, what really matters is if after some problem has arisen, you can find a way to move forward. Fae had made clear that he would take on board the criticisms that had arisen during the case and would make good on that. But still, ArbCom decided that he needs to be kicked out of Wikipedia basically because he was in contempt of ArbCom. So, ArbCom made itself part of the problem here. So, instead of persuing Fae at WMF, what should be discussed is how to reform ArbCom. Count Iblis (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Fae had made clear that he would take on board the criticisms that had arisen during the case and would make good on that. - no he did not. If he had "taken on board the criticisms" he would've resigned long time ago and we wouldn't be here, would we (hell, if he had "taken on board the criticisms", there wouldn't even have been an ArbCom case, never-mind newspaper attention)? Instead, what he did is try to weasel his way out of it by offering a non-apology-apology, while at the same time apparently trying to hold on to his position no matter what - in particular, no matter what the damage to the underlying organizations he's suppose to represent. At this point I actually really feel bad for Fae, but that just repeatedly gets trumped by both his self serving refusal to resign his positions of power, as well as this insanely misguided, wrong headed, circling of wagons, "See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil" attitude (if not outright trolling for the lulz) by his supporters (which, ok, maybe isn't exactly his fault, but the fact that he condones it and (probably) encourages it, speaks to intent). Sometimes I can actually imagine a crazy alternative universe where Fae sincerely imagines that someone like Wnt is doing him favors by speaking up. More often I can imagine a slightly less crazy alternative universe where Fae incorrectly believes that having folks like Wnt, and some other of youse, keep up this nonsense, however ridiculous it is, is somehow beneficial to him, strategically. Neither alternative universe is actually real.VolunteerMarek 03:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
You can dismiss what I say as "nonsense", "insane", and so forth. You've made it so that I honestly don't care what you think, and it is indeed rare in any case for you to open your mouth without uttering an insult. But I resent the implication that I've said anything in all of this for any reason but that it is my honest opinion about the relevant issues. Wnt (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
During the case discussion I reacted to ArbCom's position by saying "I think that all users need to be formally warned not to post any information to Wikipedia that they do not wish to be permanently and publicly associated with their real name, and to understand that any use of alternate accounts, IPs, etc. to present photos on delicate matters, such as sexually charged topics, will not be respected." And JClemens responded that "That part is basic and common knowledge, and has been for years".[30] What Fae allegedly wanted Philippe to do was to prevent ArbCom from ordering accounts he set up for privacy on Commons, after harassment so severe that even ArbCom recognized it in sanctions against a few people involved who were within their reach. And they banned him for daring to ask that WMF respect privacy on any project, anywhere, for any reason.
I never got any answer as to whether there is any limit on the time they keep information for doing "checkusers", which includes not just IP addresses but browser information. And they can use all this, divulge all this, merely because of an allegation of impropriety, which is not sustained! Remember EFF's "Panopticlick", warning about unethical Big Brother sites following people around the Web? Well Wikipedia is the kind of site they were warning people about. And no doubt a shining example for others who are less open about how they use such things to attack people. Wnt (talk) 03:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I think we should have a RFC about ArbCom over this issue to force a community discussion (or perhaps put ArbCom on MFD to basically make it compulsory for the people supporting the present ArbCom system to participate). Count Iblis (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Unless there is some real prospect that there might be a consensus to delete ArbCom, it sounds like you're suggesting we disrupt wikipedia to make a point. (talk) 09:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I doubt an RFC is going to fix this at this point; it's too hard to get any new people up to speed on all the issues. What I wish is that some members of ArbCom would see that their last resolution has most spectacularly failed to end the underlying conflict, but rather, emboldened the worst of Wikipedia. I wish Jimbo would see that these "allies" he accepted by criticizing Fae here are now gleefully tearing down his work. Maybe that would help. Wnt (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, wikiporn is not exactly Jimbo's work. The community did that all by itself, often against Jimbo's express advice, and attacking him when he tried to moderate it. The community made itself this bed to lie in, not Jimbo. JN466 10:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
WOW You just called one-man-deletions a try to moderate, boiled it in "wikiporn" and deemed the whole community as guilty, doing it's job. --/人 ‿‿ 人\ 署名の宣言 11:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and? Those are the facts. A special share of the responsibility should probably go to the Commons community, which has proven itself wilfully unable to tell the difference between (NSFW) this or (NSFW) this or (NSFW) this, and sex-ed material. JN466 11:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The disgrace is certainly not that Wikipedia is open to all kinds of content, but that it is open to political purges of highly respected contributors, and I think the article reflected that. Wnt (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The irony of Jimbo's haphazard and ill-conceived deletion spree is that it resulted in numerous resignations of Commons admins. And here we are today, complaining about how long it takes for things to get deleted, how the backlogs grow, etc. Commons was left worse off for that bit of "moderation". Perhaps a warning some here should consider. Resolute 18:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Simple observation: AvH was told by a number of people to back down at multiple times rather than have this go to ArbCom. He had been advised by many to admit what faults were real, and not to plan on surviving full scrutiny. I suspect this advice was given by people at the higherst level several times. This was not a "political purge" in any sense, it was an attempt by ArbCom to ensure that Wikipedia maintains the same rules for all editors, and any other editor who did exactly what AvH did would have been barred a long time since. Lest anyone view me as "Anti-AvH", I would point out my edits at the RfC/U, and at the ArbCom case as indicating that I hoped the case would not be dragged out to a conclusion involving banning anyone. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Idea for course of action

  • I was thinking this over for awhile, and I think one course of action that concerned WM UKer's should consider, since the current Board is covering their ears with their hands, is to start their own, competing WM UK organization. Then, petition the WMF to rescind the current WM UK's charter and recognize the new organization as the rightful WM UK. Follow that up with a notification to the UK government that the original WM UK is no longer recognized by the WMF. Jimbo could actually be of help in getting something like this done. Cla68 (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • By the way, a petition for an EGM has been posted. All interested parties should participate. Cla68 (talk) 01:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Just to note that it was been fixed. KTC (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Fae has resigned

I've just had an email from Jon Davies saying Ashley has resigned and a new chair is to be elected tonight. Dougweller (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Well, there you go. ArbCom has no jurisdiction outside of Wikipedia (oh wait, they actually do, despite policy), but they sure as heck can have a very massive effect on someone's life, effectively ruining them. Yet, they undergo no training. Jimbo, I wonder when WMF will start to think this is a highly irresponsible approach to management of this project? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
As a person who is fairly unfamiliar with this, only having seen it on the sidelines for a while, how do you suppose this escalated so far if this Fae person is 'innocent' of anything, and what would have avoided all the drama? -- Avanu (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I am not asserting guilt or innocence on the part of Fae. That isn't the point. The point is that ArbCom has no formal training whatsoever, and their decisions have directly affected the professional life of an editor here. Neither of these points of fact are apparently in dispute. The fact that ArbCom can and has had a direct effect on someone's professional life yet lack any formal training for their appointed roles speaks to a very serious management issue on the part of Jimbo and/or the WMF. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I am not persuaded by this at all. What sort of formal training would have changed the outcome here? They made a very solid decision based on facts.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Jimbo, I can not further respond to this here without getting knee-jerk blocked for making supposed legal threats (which I haven't, and won't). Saying that much by itself should be enough to shed light on the very serious nature of what has happened in recent cases. Juxtaposing that with ArbCom's status as an amateur body should be alarming to you. If it isn't, then there's not much point in further discussion on the training issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
It wasn't a unanimous decision, and the minority included a lawyer - NewYorkBrad, which rather boosts Hammersoft's point re Arbcom needing formal training. As for the idea that it was based on "facts", the turning point for the ban was because of a conversation between two people at Wikimania. The majority of Arbcom decided not to believe one of those people's versions of the conversation and I'm not aware that they even checked with the other that they'd correctly interpreted his version. Even if you have rung the other person in that conversation and asked him whether Arbcom correctly interpreted his version of events as contradicting Fae's, it would be stretching a point to describe the decision to ban Fae as based on facts. ϢereSpielChequers 00:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
What kind of professional life exactly is affected by being banned from wikipedia?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
According to the Telegraph article Fae is an IT Project Manger in RL and he had a "volunteer role" as Chair of Wikimedia UK i.e. unpaid. Hamersoft's point therefore seems overstated. I suppose it might be relevant to a Wikimedia employee who was indeffed. But presumably any admin could do that, not just ArbCom. DeCausa (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Not overstated at all. What if Fae should re-enter the job market and would-be employers search the Internet for articles about him? ArbCom's decision has had a direct effect on his professional life. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Then he'll be in the situation of any other person who's gotten himself in trouble by doing stuff on the internet they wouldn't like their future or current bosses to know about. That is not really on the order of human rights violations in my book. Doing stuff on the internet has consequences and they are not always predictable. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • That's kinda what happens to guilty people; they don't get the benefit of a clean reputation anymore. Tarc (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • That would be fair and equitable if the system under which a person was found guilty were fair and equitable. That is not the case with ArbCom. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I guess we must have different recollections of what actually happens in an Arbcom case. My recollection is that everyone who wants to gets to have a say, present evidence, and argue the arguments. Sounds pretty fair & equitable to me, unless one's definition of fair & equitable is "its only fair if you find in my favor". Tarc (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I have found a number of shortcomings in the ArbCom process. One of them is the inability of respondents to view all evidence being held by ArbCom against them. I consider that to be unfair. Another is the word limit restrictions on the accused parties. On small cases, this is not an issue. On large cases with many editors submitting evidence, it permanently hamstrings the accused from adequately responding to evidence presented. I consider that to be unfair. ArbCom is not required to show any linkage between Remedies and Findings of Fact. In essence, this constitutes summary judgement. I think this is unfair. Arbitrators can list themselves as recused for a case, but can vote for acceptance of that case. I think this is unfair. I could go on for quite a while here. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, escalation means that disputes get more heated not that disputes get resolved. So if one points to an escalation, then that is usually a sign of a failed dispute resolution process and it typically doesn't tell you much about who was right or wrong in the underlying dispute that started it all. E.g. in April 2004 there was a big battle in Falluja, and that could eventually be traced back to Saddam's WMD, that actually did not exist. Count Iblis (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

None of this would have ensued had Fae said "mea culpa" at the RfC/U and placed himself up for RfA again. Collect (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

That might be true, but I wonder if you're underestimating the determination of his pursuers. Formerip (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • ...Or underestimating ArbCom's lack-of-training induced incompetence. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Hold on here, Hammersoft. What kind of "training" do you think arbitrators should have? Who is going to pay for it? Given that arbitrators are spread around the globe, what if they aren't in a position to fly to wherever it is that the training will be held? If some sort of training was offered, would arbitrators (and Arbcom candidates) then get ripped for "wasting" donation money? On what grounds are you correlating lack of "training" with the result of Fae's situation? Is there a reason why you are not inquiring what kind of training is provided to Chapter board members and chairs (who have access to funds to pay for such training)? I do hope you will run for the Arbitration Committee this fall, so that you can actively participate in addressing the concerns you seem to have. Risker (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I really admire you for giving his accusations a serious response.. --Conti| 18:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
(ec) I've moved further discussion on this point to the subsection below. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

As is said in government resignations, his presence had become a distraction. That's an actual issue, not just some line. This had gone beyond blaming and finger-pointing. This needed to be ended so Wikipedia could move on. The Telegraph has reported his resignation and what's coming next. Quote from Davies: "He is keen that there should be no division in the Wikimedia UK community over his role as Chair, especially at a time when so many great things are being achieved. He has therefore resigned as Chair." (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yea - Anonymous users (ya-all know who you are) that encouraged and supported Fae towards this real life crash due to his being real life exposed should be ashamed. - This site has a serious problem with advocacy and promotion of minority issues by interested users. A few anonymous users with fringe beliefs caused all this shameful issue - and they are still here , this is not over at all, there are still serious problems at Commons and at Wiki UK - The Arbcom made a simple easy and clearly correct decision in this case. - Youreallycan 18:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Support blue - a quick look at the users edit history shows a single focus on supporting blue - User supports blue. Keep anything blue - lol - Youreallycan 19:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • "What if Fae should re-enter the job market and would-be employers search the Internet for articles about him? "
    I believe that that is covered by: WP:REALNAME? - jc37 19:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
    So, since we have a policy on this it's ok for anyone to say anything about someone, most especially if it is their real name? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
    See WP:HARASS, WP:OUTING in particular. (easier for me to point to the sections than to try to re-explain what is already there.) - jc37 19:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
    As the community matures so there are increasing pressures for people to disclose their real names. It helps if you are involved in our GLAM outreach, it wouldn't surprise me if it was encouraged in our educational programs, it is certainly required of charity trustees like Fae and it is almost universal amongst those who take WMF contracts. If we are going to encourage editors to link to their real life identities then we need to be a bit more cautious as to how we handle their reputations online. The way that Arbcom currently works is more akin to a bouncer than a magistrate. Instead of there being a presumption of innocent until proven guilty they seem to be working on a balance of probabilities. Combine that with the lack of an independent appeal process, the use of evidence that isn't necessarily disclosed to the accused and the shift from proportionate to punitive sanctions and you get the current unsatisfactory situation. ϢereSpielChequers 16:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The attempts to use and abuse posters' identities will not be going away - they are integral to the Wikipediocracy model. For the theoretical underpinning, see lilburne's comment on a meeting between Peter Damien and Jon Davies ( ), in which he quotes Alinsky's 13th rule of power tactics, "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it" This is what was done to Fae - all the WO people have been steadfastly going after him and only him; they've used photos and sexual traits to personalize the situation; they've made the situation entirely polarized. As Alinsky writes, they chose a target who seemed vulnerable, and one in a position of power. Then on Page 2 you see them setting up for a run on Risker. Though I see they're also mulling over Courcelles on another thread - I don't think we'll know who they'll go after until they decide, but as per this tactic, they won't change targets afterward. I doubt they'll settle for anything less than an Arb, though. Wnt (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom training

Risker, I'm splitting this out so it isn't buried in the above thread; it's an important point and one worth discussion I think, whether here or elsewhere.

Hold on here, Hammersoft. (Q1) What kind of "training" do you think arbitrators should have? (Q2) Who is going to pay for it? (Q3) Given that arbitrators are spread around the globe, what if they aren't in a position to fly to wherever it is that the training will be held? (Q4) If some sort of training was offered, would arbitrators (and Arbcom candidates) then get ripped for "wasting" donation money? (Q5) On what grounds are you correlating lack of "training" with the result of Fae's situation? (Q6) Is there a reason why you are not inquiring what kind of training is provided to Chapter board members and chairs (who have access to funds to pay for such training)? (Q7) I do hope you will run for the Arbitration Committee this fall, so that you can actively participate in addressing the concerns you seem to have. Risker (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Risker, I've taken the liberty of adding "Qx" numbering notation to your questions to better enable my responses. I hope you don't mind. Responding to your questions:
Q1: There are a number of professional opportunities for arbitration training (ex: [31]). Some organizations require such training (ex: [32]). I am quite confident that the WMF could contract with one or more professionals in this field to develop a body of training appropriate to what arbitration committees are tasked with.
Q2: The WMF.
Q3: Online training opportunities are virtually ubiquitous in today's world. Disparate geophysical locations are no longer an obstacle to training.
Q4: There are plenty of contrasting questions to this, such as can we afford not to?
Q5: The answer is self evident. If you have an arbitration panel consisting of people with no training in arbitration, it is unreasonable to expect competent results.
Q6: I am not discussing the WMF or Chapter board members; my attention here is ArbCom. I believe the WMF suffers from a number of problems. I have commented elsewhere about such issues.
Q7: First, I choose to remain only in the most important position on this project; editor. Someone even once forced me to have the rollbacker right. I asked for it to be undone by that person (and they did). Second, membership or lack thereof in ArbCom does not qualify me or disqualify me from participating in effecting change with ArbCom. Your membership on ArbCom does not confer any rights on you to effect change or prevent change on ArbCom. I fail to see how my being on ArbCom would grant me any special powers.
--Hammersoft (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
You've got some problems here with your logic, Hammersoft. I can accept that you (and many others) don't like the result of a case. That does not mean that "training" would have given a different result. And, excuse me, but you've failed to address the cost issue appropriately. Arbcom does not have access to WMF funds. If the WMF was to sponsor "education" for arbitrators, it would have to do so for all of the arbitration committees — roughly 100 people spread around the world — and these sessions cost in the range of $10,000 per person. Now, I'm not opposed to being provided with "training", but that's an awful lot of money, especially if travel expenses are added in. (And no, there's no way to justify training *only* English Wikipedia arbitrators, except possibly as an "experiment".) Frankly, quite a few arbitrators over the year have been elected by the community *because* they aren't involved in any other WMF-related activities, and in some cases at least in part for voicing opposition to proposals from the WMF. How can they retain their independence from the WMF if, as a requirement of being a member of the committee, they must take a WMF-sponsored (and approved) training session? What happens to an arbitrator who does not participate in this training - is their election by the community invalidated? If they don't "pass" the course, are they forced to resign? Are they going to be compensated in some way for taking this mandatory education you propose?

And I very much disagree with your belief that Arbcom membership does not confer any "rights" [I'd call them responsibilities] to effect change on the committee; if I believed that, I wouldn't bother wasting my time. Arbitrators are chosen specifically because they are *not* puppets on a string, as far as I can tell. I've never seen any candidate supported with words like "will do exactly what we tell him to do" or "has no desire to change things so is perfect". I think perhaps you're a bit out of step with the community on that point. Risker (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

  • My concerns vis-a-vis training have nothing to do with a particular case. I am not expecting a different result for a particular case as a result of training. Your assertion that training would cost $10,000 per person is unsupported. Yes, if they did not take the training they would not be permitted to serve. This is no different than the current requirement that the WMF must have arbitrators' real identities on file. You believe that being on ArbCom grants you special privileges to effect change on ArbCom? What special privileges might those be? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, Hammersoft, as I write this I've got half a dozen promotional packets from recognized traning groups for different types of dispute resolution training, and the least expensive of the lot is $15,000 for a course, with prices ranging upwards of $50,000. Now, having worked with similar programs before, I figure if we were really lucky, we could get a stripped-down course without certification for quite a bit less; however, any customization of the training would result in a commensurate increase in cost. Have you done any research on it at all? Are you aware of any courses that specialize in dispute resolution for online forums?

And yes, I believe that the broad support of the community granted to members of the Arbitration Committee confers a responsibility on the committee to address concerns and to consider and develop new processes - usually in consultation with the community. The AUSC was developed in consultation with the community, and features community members. Community involvement in selection of checkusers and oversighters was developed in consultation with the community. But at the end of the day, the community has selected the members of the Arbitration Committee to make decisions; that's our responsibility. If you want to restructure arbitration process (including candidate selection and appointment requirements, case management, grant applications to the WMF, and so on), that's up to you, but don't expect other people to do the heavy lifting for you. At this point, you've not illustrated that there's actually a problem that the community feels should be fixed. You've still not shown any correlation between "training" and results. Risker (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Well Risker, as I write this I have zero assessments on my desk of the training required, means of conducting that training, and expenses involved. No, I haven't done any research on it at all and neither have you, so you are not in any more position to declare what the expenses of the training would be anymore than I am. Discussing what the costs are now is seriously cart before the horse. We don't know what the needs are as no assessment has been done. We don't know what the alternatives are to addressing those needs. But, we're ready to conclude what the costs are? I don't understand this. Why is there such resistance on your part? I'm not asking you to do any heavy lifting. But criminy I'm not asking you to do heavy lifting to shoot it down either. Accepting a structure where group incompetence is guaranteed is astonishing. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • You have to have estimates on what potential training would cost before you do the assessments because you have to know if its worth the time and effort to do the assessment to begin with. That is standard operating procedure out in the real world. So it is definitely not cart before the horse. If you think the arbs should be trained its up to you to make your case by doing a mini assessment on your own which would include estimated prices so you can make your pitch the community at large to take the time and effort to do a full assessment and proposal. You certainly never jump into this kind of assessment without already having done a cursory assessment on which to decide if a full scale assessment should be done. -DJSasso (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Wow, thanks, Hammersoft. In what way is "group incompetence" guaranteed? Is this the way you feel about all elected roles? You've been going on about the need for "training" for arbitrators for quite a while now in various forums, but you've not given any indication of what *you* think arbitrators need to be trained to do. Dispute resolution programs resulting in certification are very expensive; customized ones even more so, because their potential audience is limited. They're also very time-consuming, between 50 and 500 hours of time that a person needs to invest. As I said below, it's your cart, and you started it careering down the hill. Time for you to start supporting your own claims. Risker (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I take it Hammersoft is not a fan of representative democracy. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • So now we have to devolve into my political stance in order to shoot this down?!?!?!?! Really? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, and I'll strike that. I was trying to make a point through sarcasm, and text didn't convey it. I stand by my intended point though: ArbCom is an elected body. We elect them because we think they're the right people for the job. If we didn't think that, we could elect other people instead. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

And I trust you will pay the (roughly) $50K per person needed for that training by reputable in-person trainers. Short seminars would only run $5K per person, so let's be cheap and ask who will pay the $80K+ for the training. In short - we might as well ask that editors be trained as well while we are at it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

  • And now Risker's unsupported assertion of $10K per person balloons to an unsupported $50K per person? There's plenty of 4 year institutions that would not require $50k in tuition to graduate. We're not talking about a four year degree in arbitration here. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The figures are real - I suggest you look at college fee schedules for post-graduate studies on this. A four year course would run on the order of $150K plus. It is a specialized post-graduate area. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Hammersoft, if you feel those numbers are unrealistic, would you do the research that finds otherwise? Personally, I think that 50K is unrealistic, but although 10K seems excessive and unfair, it's probably pretty accurate. Running off my own guesstimates, though, I'd predict $7500 per person for a 2-day training, not including travel expenses. I'm also going to guesstimate a flat $20K one-time for developing the training curriculum. I'll take Risker's number of 100 arbs across the various projects at face value. That comes to $770K total, just for current arbs. And any new arbs would have to be trained, too. Guesstimate of 20 new arbs a year who haven't been trained previously. So $770K the first time, and an additional $150K a year. Even going for conservatively cheap guesstimates, that adds up bigtime. Where does the money come from? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I don't think any assessment of the cost of training can be done until a decision is made about what that training would comprise. The entire model of training would have to be concluded as well before any assessment could be made. If online training were done, for example, no travel would be required. We're putting the cart before the horse here "bigtime". --Hammersoft (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's your cart, Hammersoft, and your case to make. Risker (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Therefore, best to shoot it down before it gets off the table? Wow. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) And, just to add, that model-design would probably cost money to put it together in a way that will be taken seriously too. If I were you, I'd start there - put together a proposal that the WMF commission a study into the viability and cost-effectiveness of this idea. It'll cost money too, but it's a good enough idea that the numbers should be figured out. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
ArbCom's problem is that they made the wrong political decision. I don't know if they really dreamed that banning Fae was going to end the drama, or are so arrogant that they really can't accept someone would want to preserve a right to privacy on other projects or think that asking WMF for help was acceptable, or if they were fully in on the plan with the WO people, or if they were just plain scared of what would happen to them if they didn't play along. But training wouldn't fix this - it would just help them to talk more conventionally in that faux-caring, not so subtly condescending tone used by professional "human relations" people everywhere to put down the people they sort and discard. Wnt (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Risker, you took every opportunity to shoot down this discussion. You want to assert thousand and (even hundreds of!) thousands of dollars to train ArbCom I obliged you by closing it, but you forcibly re-opened it. We couldn't even get to the point of discussion on possible benefits of this before you shot it to pieces with your assertions of cost. Maybe, just MAYBE people could come up with a way to provide reasonable training to ArbCom without it costing an arm and a leg, eh? No, that's impossible. Shoot it down, with a vengeance. I'm shaking my head in disbelief. NOTHING will come from this discussion precisely because of your passionate resistance to it even before we had a chance to discuss. Prove me wrong. I dare you to approach ArbCom with the idea, and work towards a possible training solution. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Hammersoft, that's not how it works. It's your idea, YOU have the burden of setting it up. If you want to ask other people to help you do that, may I suggest the Village Pump? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Ah, right. So, I create an article and everybody tears it down, with the excuse that it's my burden to get the article to FA before someone deletes it? I seem to recall that isn't the model we used on that thing we used to call Wikipedia. You know, where a bunch of madmen had the outrageous idea that people would work together towards a common goal? I know, it's a fairy tale, but still... --Hammersoft (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Well this is not an article. People have pointed out the hurdles you have to overcome for your proposal to be viable, we can all come up with ideas if they aren't viable, then yes they'll be ignored. If you want to put it in article terms: you go to AFC and pitch an article, various experienced editors point out you lack sources for notability, the concept is unverifiable and it's basically a bunch of original research. Do we (a) create the article, then list it for deletion or (b) tell you what's wrong with it before that happens. Of course after we've done (b) you could go away and do the research, maybe get past the problems and create a great article proving everyone wrong, or of course you could just become very indignant and throw your toys around. I know which one most people will find a mature and potentially impressive response. -- (talk) 06:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • -1 more like. If beating the living crap out of any idea until the person suggesting an idea fleshes it out to the nth degree is the model we're supposed to follow, we might as well close up shop and go home. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Slight change in direction here. While I don't think that spending a lot of donor money on an illusory and ill-defined "training program" is a good leap at this point, Hammersoft isn't totally off the wall; I think he's just moving far too fast. There is something to be said for the idea of finding ways for our project (and our sister projects) to identify and develop leaders in various areas, including dispute resolution. Perhaps a first step would be developing a questionnaire to be circulated amongst the 10 largest communities, or the various arbitration committees, to better understand how slightly different communities handle issues - with the objective of learning from each other's experiences, and perhaps developing some best practices. I am fairly certain that this is something that could gain WMF support. Any thoughts about this? Risker (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
(e/c, randomish placement) Sharing of best practice would be a good idea, and certainly fits in with editor retention (though there's that weird disconnect between one view that most editors don't pay any attention to ArbCom and the other that ArbCom is simply destroying the very will of our best and brightest). I must say, though I was quite skeptical of WP:DRN, it seems to have worked out pretty well. That noticeboard, and many others, are our development grounds, and to me it's not hard to see which are the leaders in successfully resolving issues. The tricky bit is to get them to stand for the Arbitration Committee, which too often seems to be the ultimate punishment. Franamax (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Good, cool headed, objective, expert analysis and decision making takes an immense range of qualities, knowledge and skills. I have a hard time imagining training that would do much for that. North8000 (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It seems rather excessive to demand that people voted into arbcom should require more training than people voted into the legislative bodies of most of the world's countries (i.e. none). Secondly there seems to be no reasonable grounds to expect that training would have changed their decision (to my surprise I often find that no matter the degree of training they receive people still disagree with me...). ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Is ArbCom a legislative body though?
Most strategic decision-making groups within organisations of any sort of stature have a training budget. I would imagine the WMF board has one. I would say the question is whether we consider ArbCom and its decisions important enough to merit one. Personally, I think there are problems with ArbCom, but they're not to do with training. Usually, you're training decision-makers around their brief and parameters, but those are not well-defined for ArbCom. Formerip (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I see Arbs as more akin to magistrates than politicians, and where I come from Magistrates get training. Mind you so do most politicians, not as an official precondition for standing, but as part of their role, and in most parties as a requirement for being approved as a candidate for that party. ϢereSpielChequers 23:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't really see this going somewhere. Arbcom has ruined someone's professional and, likely, personal life. Doesn't matter to them, i'm sure they don't even care. Funny enough, that's one of the things about Arbcom, they don't really have to care about the effects of their actions. It's not a real job, they're not getting paid, so if they happen to harm people along the way, no biggee. The only control the community apparently has over them is who is elected, so make sure not to vote for any of the current Arbs in the next election. I know i'm not going to. SilverserenC 21:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
So what then, the only ArbCom candidates worth voting for are those who would never ban anyone, lest that "ruin" some aspect of their life? Or just those editors who use their real names, they get the magic immunity of not having to answer for their actions? Or just the editors you personally agree should be banned? Or is it really truly just the current dastardly and corrupt lot, but smooth sailing thereafter? Your voter guide to the next AC election will doubtless make interesting reading. Franamax (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
My last comment wasn't even in reference to this case specifically. Really the cumulative amount of cases since the new Arbcom was elected. They've just not been making good case decisions altogether. SilverserenC 23:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I think this "Arbcom ruined..." meme needs to be nipped in the bud before some clueless sucker actually gets deceived into beliving you're saying something truthful. The reality of the situation is that Ashely Van Haeften ruined Ashley Van Haeften's professional and personal life. This is what can potentially happen when one uploads semi-naked pictures of oneself to the internet, or behaves in a disruptive, abusive manner on a public encyclopedia project and becomes rather careless about leaving breadcrumbs behind on who he is in real life. Negative actions have negative consequences. Tarc (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest you striking the "sucker" and those ban-because-of-defending-naked-picture claims. The Arbitration case could not be clearer that the ban is not enforced for his stance on those media or his sexual preference, but puppetry and consistent verbal abuse. While his stance on defending those media could be the cause of his behavior, this is entirely his own problem. Being a gay doesn't automatically make me feel sympathetic to his homophobia claim, it's just a cheap way to shirk responsibility. But now the media believe this and use it in the headlines, I can't say I would forgive him if he decides to plea for unban after some time. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think the idea of providing dispute resolution, group problem solving, arbitration, project management, or critical thinking training for members of ArbCom isn't such a bad idea. The WMF does appear to have enough money right now to fund it. One way to go about it would be for each arbitrator to choose a training course in their local area, then petition the WMF to pay for it. I think the current ArbCom is doing a fairly good job, but there isn't any reason why attending training might not give them some good ideas for how to improve their deliberative processes. Cla68 (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I would cautiously support that, whilst keeping in mind that decent training is generally $1000+ per day. But I would be more likely to support the idea for editors farther down the dispute-resolution chain (DRN, RSN, FTN, PUI, WQA, MedXXX) where disputes can actually get resolved. By the time it gets to ArbCom, it's generally already become a slash-and-burn issue. Franamax (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Further down the chain things are more rule-bound, effects are less wide reaching and there's not an identifiable group of editors to be trained. Formerip (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I could easily identify at least 5 or 6 editors off the top of my head who are top-notch at those boards and could likely benefit from further training. They are the people we should be developing for the longer term, and whether or not they join ArbCom, their improved skills will benefit the encyclopedia for as long as they choose to volunteer. The current ArbCom is subject to intense NYB-reasonableness radiation, so I would suggest they have access to all the training they need. Franamax (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
If Wikipedia is interested in such training, obviously the first step is to figure out everything that people do on those $1000 training days, write it up in a Wikiversity course, and put the trainers out of business. (Actually, I don't think it would work - I suspect you could make an even more prestigious training course if you charged $1 million a day to wave a smoking sage stick over a group of CEOs one at a time; the expense would ensure that no riffraff were certified, and anybody foolishly claiming their boss's certification was bunk would be out of a job and unhireable... my guess is that a $1000 training program minus the $1000 fee would be valueless, but what do I know?) Wnt (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfounded assumptions

I think there seem to be some assumptions above that the public fallout over Fae's banning was not foreseen. While I won't pretend to speak for anyone else, I will say that for my part, this scenario was not unanticipated, but that the evidence before the committee compelled me to vote for Fae's ban despite the negative consequences. Sometimes, one has to do what one believes to be right, no matter how unpopular the consequences. By all means, disagree with me over whether the consequences were worth voting as I did, or whether my votes were the correct ones based on the evidence (note: that's rhetorical, as people already have done both), but don't assume that all of ArbCom are so stupid that we cannot see the potential political fallout. I think it's a fair question to ask each arbitrator in the next election, but here's my response: I wished this didn't have to happen, but I was not going to let what I still believe to have been an attempt to exert backroom influence on the community by a chapter officer in a conversation with a WMF employee go unnoted solely for the sake of avoiding negative public press. The mess, I'm afraid, was not of my making, and I was not and am not willing to be part of a cover-up of such an ethics breach. Jclemens (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Assuming that this judgement about how bad his behavior was, is correct then it is still not clear why he had to be site banned. I can understand that the ArbCom findings imply that Fae cannot be in an position of trust like an Admin or be a checkuser. But there is nothing to suggest that Fae is unsuitable for simply editing Wikipedia. Also, even if there were some problems with his editing, then the banning policy says "Editors are only site-banned as a last resort, usually for extreme or very persistent problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions and that often resulted in considerable disruption or stress to other editors."
So, not only should there have been extreme and persistent problems with Fae editing here (which ArbCom said were not there), dealing with such problems with remedies lesser than a site ban should likely have failed. Count Iblis (talk) 02:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
So are you saying that if it were not the head of WMUK but some random editor (or admin?) who contacted the WMF liason to request the WMF protect his right to not disclose personal information about his Commons accounts, you would not ban him? Wnt (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
(Ignoring the mischaracterization of the conversation for the sake of brevity...) Of course not, because Fae's position was part of the problem: [33]. Jclemens (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
And as an addendum, the statement of not-unexpected consequences above is really not an invitation to further discuss Fae's history of problems with honesty that led to the ban. My statements on the matter elsewhere are sufficiently open and as exhaustive as I believe to be healthy. Jclemens (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Then Fae was banned for two things, neither one of which is an offense: a) asking for help, and b) being head of WMUK. To be clear, from what you've written here and there, it is a logical conclusion that Fae was banned for being head of WMUK under some specific circumstances where otherwise he would not have been. No where in policy does it say that heads of Wikimedia chapters are subject to any different rules than anyone else. You say that he deserved special treatment i.e. being indefinitely banned for "numerous violations" because of his position. I don't know if he sought special treatment in the opposite direction (to escape desysoping, for example), but I think the wave of publicity in international media he has suffered demonstrates that there was some reason for him to receive it. In any case there can be no justification here for jumping to an extreme punishment merely because you say he sought leniency by what should have been a permissible route. Wnt (talk) 09:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
You are once again completely misrepresenting what people say, you know. Jclemens quite clearly said that Fae was banned for attempting to use their position as chair of WMUK to create improper interference with ArbCom. I'm getting sick of seeing you (and several others) completely twist what other people say in order to fit your preconceived notions. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 11:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
How exactly would Fae "use" a position in WMUK, an independent organization, to influence Philippe, in WMF, to interfere with ArbCom, which is generally free from WMF interference unless there's a good reason? Wnt (talk) 13:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The truth of the matter is that Philippe clearly stated to ArbCom that Fae did not in any way use his position within a WMF-related charity in conversation with him. Jclemens knows that as well as the rest of ArbCom does, and to claim otherwise is an untenable position. ArbCom has put its own spin on that conversation for its own reasons; that much may be speculated about, but the fact that Philippe regarded Fae as making a request in his individual capacity is beyond contention. --RexxS (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
If you say that it is beyond contention, then it means that you have an independently verified video and audio recording of the conversation, or of Philippe typing those words into an email. Could you post it please? Cla68 (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Failing that, I propose that Arbcom enter into the decision record that, "We believe our decision to be the truth as we perceive it, but recognize that RexxS states that a differing interpretation is "beyond contention." Arbcom concedes that anything that RexxS says is "beyond contention" may very well be so." Cla68 (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Inconvenient as the truth is for your little campaign, it is still the truth. As an obvious other option, you could ask Jimmy or any member of ArbCom whether I have in any way mischaracterised what Philippe told ArbCom. --RexxS (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
What is "my campaign" RexxS? What is Arbcom's "campaign?" What is your "campaign"? Please answer all three questions. Cla68 (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Have you asked Jimmy or ArbCom yet? Why not? --RexxS (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
RexxS, have you asked what my or their supposed agenda was, or have you simply assumed? Notice that I haven't assumed what your agenda is without asking. That's the difference. Ask questions, then ask follow-up questions, then judge. If you lead with accusations, it appears that you have already made up your mind, and that may affect the credibility of your argument. Cla68 (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Have you asked Jimbo or ArbCom whether I have in any way mischaracterised what Philippe told ArbCom? It's a straightforward question, no matter how much you seem to want to deflect onto meta-issues. Ask them that question; and their answer - or the resulting silence - will make everything clear to you. --RexxS (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, that's fine RexxS. Ask Arbcom that question, without assuming first that there is something wrong. Ask on ArbCom's talk page. Phrase the question politely and neutrally, then wait for an answer. Cla68 (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me, Cla68, but you're the one who cast doubt and mocked me when I wrote "Philippe clearly stated to ArbCom that Fae did not in any way use his position within a WMF-related charity in conversation with him." I explained to you how to verify the truth of that. Ask the question and you'll know that what I said was completely accurate. --RexxS (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I never did get an answer to my question. How can Fae's role in an independent organization be abused here? I should note that the first two versions of the principle (the third removing all explanation whatsoever) actually say that Fae was "attempting to appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) to prevent disclosure of his accounts." Where does it say that WMUK officials can't do that? Now is there some social pressure involved - maybe, I don't know what happened because Philippe has resolutely refused to explain what was said during those few minutes in public, even as Fae has been dragged through the media mud over it on three continents. But how often is an Office Action not due to some kind of arm-twisting, whether it's an outraged starlet threatening a lawsuit or some murky possibility of legal liability if they don't prevent a potential pedophile's possible pandering? I don't think Fae applied nearly as much pressure, by whatever means, as most who get Office Actions done for them ... or else the WMF would have done it. Wnt (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Funny enough, nobody seems to care about the news articles. Sure, it's getting reblogged to other newspapers a bit, but rather minimally, considering. And the views on them aren't that spectacular.

The Olympics probably factors into that. And the simple fact that no one really cares. At this point, the recent Wikipedia study appears to have already gotten more coverage than anything to do with Fae. SilverserenC 10:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

"Somebody you've never heard of gets in trouble for moderately unpleasant behaviour at job you would never have guessed existed, resigns from organisation you didn't know existed" is not a compelling newspaper headline. WilyD 10:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
That's probably why the papers are sticking the word porn in anywhere they can, no matter how erroneous it makes the articles. SilverserenC 10:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. And people wonder why I argue that news media should not be considered reliable sources. — Coren (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

insert edit break

Jc:I was not going to let what I still believe to have been an attempt to exert backroom influence on the community by a chapter officer in a conversation with a WMF employee go unnoted. This is the crux of the issue. It would have been absolutely reasonable for ArbCom to note this. But it doesn't appear to breach any WP rules or norms, and it is hard to see how it is a bannable offence. ArbCom gives the impression of making things up as it goes along and of being influenced by noises off (this is the worst part) rather than following a line of reasoning. Very arguably, Fae had a right to approach WMF - even if he had no particular right to be taken seriously - if he felt that ArbCom was overreaching by requiring him to provide details of his online activities outside Wikipedia. ArbCom seems to feel that its authority is not only unlimited, but also that attempts to challenge it are beyond the pale. Formerip (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Each potentially bannable offence cannot be enumerated in advance. In this case, there was only one prior precedent (Gerard/Godwin), and that so tangentially applicable that the committee members who knew of it didn't actually bring it up in the discussion. In this case, it appears that some editors do not agree that attempting to use real-world back-channel influence to affect ArbCom workings is a bannable offense. I disagree. The issue wasn't that Fae appealed a decision to WMF in lieu of Jimbo because Jimbo had kicked him off of this page, but that Fae communicated with two different people (one WMF staffer, one Commons admin), directly but informally and off-wiki, asking each of them to use their personal authority and responsibility to change where the in-process case was going. He could have instead asked the committee himself to change its tack; he did not. When confronted about these issues, Fae lied about the content of at least one email, and issued a half-hearted semi-apology at the last minute after the ban motion was already passing. When I was trained as a corporate investigator, telling the truth and cooperation in an authorized investigation were both an absolute must: regardless of any other circumstances, a lie told in the process of a duly authorized investigation was a terminable offense, as was a refusal to cooperate with such an investigation. Fae's not banned because he appealed to anyone, because what he did wasn't an appeal: it was an attempt to use his positional influence to make a problem "go away" and his subsequent dishonesty about his efforts that did him in. Open and straightforward dealing is a fundamental part of a collaborative project like that. Jclemens (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Each potentially bannable offence is specified in advance if ArbCom is enforcing policy. What you're saying is that "ArbCom does not make policy" --- but apparently that is only because they don't have to bother writing down why they make decisions at all! They can go along based on their own opinions, who's good, what's bad, and it's up to the poor suckers out in the community to try to do Kremlinology post hoc and guess what de facto policies they're actually applying. You've reverted to a situation that predates the Twelve Tables, a strictly personal and arbitrary enforcement that does not deserve to be compared to law.
In reality WMF has an executive power to deal with unforeseen situations - they can enact Office Actions, like the one Fae is (perhaps) accused of asking Philippe to do. But those haven't been delegated to ArbCom, they're not presented as punitive reactions to some editor wrongdoing, and they're done by people who so far have been pretty fastidious about not doing them frivolously. And banning someone because he tried to change your decision - that's just frivolous, petty, vindictive, anything but beneficial to Wikipedia, as this media circus now makes all too very clear. Wnt (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Jc: Recognition that ArbCom's actions are going to have an effect in public is only one part of wisdom here. In my opinion, ArbCom has an ethical duty to get their assertions right most especially when they have reason to believe their actions will have public effect. In such cases, they should be bound to support those assertions with iron clad evidence. That didn't happen with Fae. Coming up with publicly displayed "Findings of Fact" (so titled) such as this before all the information about this event was in, before Fae had a chance to respond, before Philippe had a chance to respond, was grossly irresponsible. If ArbCom were not amateurs, this would have been avoided. This sort of behavior is flatly indefensible. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Hammersoft, do you think that Fae could have done anything better, and, if so, did you tell him so when it was timely to do so? Cla68 (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't have a vested interest in Fae. My focus here has been on ArbCom's actions, not Fae's. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I think an objective evaluation of an arbcom case should examine the behavior of all the participants- arbcom members, the case parties, and the peanut gallery. Now that you have critiqued ArbCom, do you have any feedback on the behavior of the case parties or other participants in the case? Cla68 (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • No. I see the Fae case as symptomatic of larger problems. If we place the requirement that before one can comment on ArbCom, one must know every detail of every case, we'll never move forward. If we place the requirement that before a person can comment on a case, they must know everything about the case, there will be silence. Nobody...not even members of ArbCom (by their own admission, many of them don't even read the talk pages)...would be eligible to comment. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, you have provided rather strong opinions on the Arbcom decision in this particular case. If you aren't familiar with all the details, why do you feel so confident in giving such a strong opinion? Is it a result of a general feeling you have about previous cases? If so, which ones? Cla68 (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I understand your line of questioning. I disagree with its direction, per my above comments. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, that is typical behaviour – normal even. You'd certainly not be the first to argue that since you disagree with the ArbCom decision, then it cannot possibly be well founded and there is obvious malfeasance. Neither would you be the first to note that a complete examination of the context is hard work, and obviously not necessary since you've already established that ArbCom Was Wrong(tm). — Coren (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It's common with human beings that we decide what is true or who is right, then interpret (or ignore) the facts to support our conclusion. I have done it before. Cla68 (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Guys, if you want to dismiss my comments, fine. I can be just as dismissive of yours, and use similar strength of argument to do so. That doesn't move us any further forward. Effectively, you're telling me that unless I know every case in every detail, then I have no business commenting on ArbCom's procedures, training, etc. If that is the metric we are to operate by, then nobody will have the privilege of commenting...not even ArbCom itself, as I pointed out above. This isn't a question of confirmation bias. If I am looking at a car with a flat tire, I don't need to have an ASE mechanics certification to be able to say "Yep, that's a flat tire". I don't have to be well versed in every single detail of the case to know that making accusations such as this when not all the information was in, when Fae hadn't had a chance to see it and respond, when Philippe hadn't had a chance to see it and respond, was indeed grossly irresponsible. That accusation created a serious dispute on the PD talk page, forcing a complete rewording of the FoF three days later. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

another edit break

I can't speak to other users' confirmation bias, but I can say that I think Fae's conduct on Wikipedia was serious, and it may even have been serious enough to warrant a ban. But the trouble is that ArbCom explicitly found that that was not the case. They banned him because - and only because - he complained about them to a WMF employee. That's just extraordinarily stinky. Formerip (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Despite the harrassment, Fæ's conduct was still excellent for the vast bulk of his hundreds of thousands of valuable contributions. Otherwise you have it exactly right FormerIP. Perhaps the most valuable lesson from this debacle is how a tiny random event can change the outcome of a major decision. Prior to Fæ's chance encounter in a Marvin Center hallway, the Arb case was heading towards a much more favorable outcome. Fæ looked set to avoid serious sanctions, while at least one of the WR accounts was facing an imminent ban. While perhaps somewhat harsh, such a result would have reflected a reasonable weighing of the evidence on the offsite harassment and its understandable effects on Fae's recent conduct. As it is, due to the all-powerfulness of success in social affairs, WR accounts can now make their attacks against Fæ's defenders with the expectation that many will take them seriously. So its most admirable that Prioryman, Wnt , Sillver and a few others have continued to speak up for him. After one's taken a fall, such support can make the difference between a downward spiral and an ultimately positive experience, where one uses the wisdom and motivation gained to become even more effective at making the world a better place. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I've vaguely been following this and I can't say that I care very much about what Fae did or didn't do or his fate generally. But I've been trying to pick up on the crux of what went on at ArbCom - which is not that easy because (a) the ArbCom pages are not that accessible except with considerable effort and (b) there's a lot of (clearly) irrelevant emotive stuff flying around by the pro- and anti-Fae partisans. I have, though, gradually been getting the picture that FormerIP's post above is the nub of this. I would very much like someone who thinks ArbCom did a good job on this to provide an answer to FormerIP's point. DeCausa (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I think that is a fair and honest question, and the Committee members should not feel threatened or hectored to answer it. Cla68 (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Probably no one outside of Arbcom and the one(s) who told them about the Fæ / WMF employee meeting can answer the question, and even if they did, why would those who tend to accept Fæ's side of things believe them? So there will always be a stink. If the Arb's initial account of the meeting was correct, then they did a fine job. Maybe they are being criticized unjustly, and it would probably do more harm than good to try to achieve transparency on what happened. Sadly the WR accounts are the only ones with something to smile about, might be best to accept it and move on. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I, for one, would be much more comfortable if the evidence was public and laid out; regardless of outcome, it should all be out there. And I would not be inclined to accept Fae's version but against an evidentiary void, it is impossible to contravene it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, what that goes to show is that the coverup can be worse than the crime, i.e. the Nixon Effect. Fae tried to solicit someone to intervene and get him off the hook, and it backfired. Badly. Call it a life lesson, both for Fae and for the gaggle of supporters who are still carrying the torch, and move on. Tarc (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Except that Fae wasn't the president of Wikipedia, he had stepped down as Admin already, and the ArbCom finding will make it difficult for him to regain that status. And note that Nixon wasn't banned from the US, he just resigned. As I explained above, the banning policy says that we only ban people as a last resort, usually for extreme or very persistent problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions and that often resulted in considerable disruption or stress to other editors.
So, perhaps we should rewrite the banning policy and write that being in contempt of ArbCom is also a reason to get banned, even if you are an excellent editor who edits without much problems. Count Iblis (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
There was a precedent for "contempt of Arbcom" well before this case and this particular committee came in; see A Nobody (talk · contribs) and the motion he violated. Tarc (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Just to be clear. Fae was banned after the word with Philippe became known. But it was just part of the reason behind the ban. My impression, and I was watching the case quite carefully, was that it and Fae's style of non-disclosure tipped ArbCom over the edge into a site ban. In isolation, I doubt that merely asking if Philippe could do something would have resulted in a ban. It's the cumulative effect of a number of things. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
It simply and plainly wasn't "just part of the reason behind the ban". It might be just part of the reason you think it was justified (and you are entirely entitled to that view), but no sensible reading of the ArbCom votes can lead to a conclusion other than that the ban was for speaking to Philippe. Formerip (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I would have been happy with Fae handing back adminship, based on the problems with his RfA. My impression from some arb comments on the first proposed Fae remedy (6) is that some felt affronted or betrayed by his approach to Philippe and were acting out of hurt feelings or crimped pride. But the remedy that passed was 6.1, and the deciding voters were Roger, Risker and Silk Tork, whose responses were more measured, and that's what I'm thinking of when I say the Philippe thing was rather the last straw than the entire reason. The committee seems to have responded more to their judgement of Fae's character, as revealed in his behaviour toward them and other editors, his approaches to Philippe and the Commons admin, and other evidence presented, rather than to one particular incident, and I think they're entitled to do that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
C'mon. That really isn't a sensible reading of what's on the page. You've bent so far backwards you're upright again. What is it that you imagine you're defending? Formerip (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's my reading. On the public evidence, I wouldn't have voted for a site ban. But, on the public evidence, a site ban is not an unreasonable response either. It depends, mainly, on your attitude toward undisclosed accounts. I'm a bit more relaxed about that than some. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Even still, each brick of the cumulative evidence should be established on firm, dispassionate, public, evidentiary foundation. Impression is not the way to go. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I also agree with Hammersoft that the process was rushed. As I pointed out twice at the time, Fae was hit with new evidence about his interaction with Philippe -- according to ArbCom's own procedures, they should have allowed a week for evidence to be submitted from all parties, then a week for workshop principles and debate over these points, then another week to propose a decision. This was not done, eliminating any real chance for cooler heads to prevail on the surprise ban proposal (which is one reason why it's turning up here now). Note that for this case, the crucial part of the ArbCom process did not go via evidence -> principle -> proposed decision; rather, the ban, signed sealed and delivered, preceded any public discussion of the evidence and barely took 24 hours from the private discussion, so far as I know from reading about the case. Wnt (talk) 06:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, the exact time periods for doing that are not that material but it should proceed from evidence put in the record and cross examined before anyone even thinks of forming and rendering a decision, that much is clear. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I am pleased that AvH/Fae has done the right thing. Thank you. I'd like to second a point made above: "None of this would have ensued had Fae said "mea culpa" at the RfC/U and placed himself up for RfA again." — I think that's exactly right. Now it's a much more complicated thing, it's clear that there is a network of alternative accounts that need to be revealed and renounced before the restoration of trust can become possible. I hope that AvH/Fae will get that list into ArbCom's hands as a first step towards ending this fiasco for good. This whole thing has been a snowball that has started an avalanche and it's time for us to dig out. Carrite (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
You know that's not true. The moment any new account would hit their hot little hands, Fae's opponents would be filing processes, posting off-line gibes, having a field day with it. ArbCom can't block people off-line for posting stuff if they don't helpfully disclose their Wikipedia account in the name of openness. The war drums would be beating on Wikipediocracy for a new round of Examiner articles and appeals to try to get whatever-it-is on Fox News.
If there's any advice to be given to Fae, it's either (a) if he can, use WCA to generate new Wiki projects not subject to Wikipedia's sicknesses, redesigned to minimize its instabilities, targetted to provide just the sorts of material and services that Wikipedia is too dysfunctional to succeed with. (Like comprehensive coverage of breaking news without spending 90+% of your time arguing why it's not "unethical" to cover all the available sources and data) Or else (b) go off on his own with some friends, take the experience he's had working with GLAM and Monmouth, and approach some other British towns with a brand new idea - their citizens getting together in a collective project to document all their interesting features (notable or not) with medium-resolution SA-BY-NC content with hi-resolution photos available for a fee, detailed information available with ads, all the revenue to go to reduce the tax burdens of the people of that town, and locking down every landmark and library with restrictive rules on photography and reuse so that Wikipedia never can undermine them. Who can be so quick as I've been to criticize such a notion anymore, when after all, it might not throw out two-thirds of the content because it's redundant, non-notable, unethical, uninteresting etc., because it would be a valuable money making stream, its copyright treasured until the last star burns out of the heavens and the last proton decays. Wnt (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
...or (c) start a small puppet theatre, fashioning his puppets out of discarded socks. Wnt, I think you may have lost track of what this thread was about. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

ENWP is not Wikimedia UK, so a plea to stop and take it elsewhere

  • The local politics (in this case UK) is what one really wishes people would stop importing onto the EN pedia; it has nothing to do with most of us and even less to do with why we are here, to improve content and NOT to focus on each other. These Wikimedia UK issues and personalities, to the extent they belong anywhere, belong on a Wikimedia site, not on one of its language encyclopedias. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Training and Arbcom's poor evidentiary process

Issues for training: 1) how to handle public evidence to make transparent decisions; 2) when private information has to be kept private and how to handle it by noting its existence, and not keeping private things that do not need to be kept private; 3) how to treat evidence and conclusions to draw from the existence of such evidence, and not make broad extrapolations. Broad extrapolations are policy making, but Arbcom's role is adjudicatory and therefore must be more narrow in focus, directly from the evidence presented to the community.

Better attention to these things would have made for a better decision and a better decision process. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Following up: In review, one part of the evidence in the Fae matter (as case study):
1) It appears there were two conversations between Phillipe and Risker [or another Arb] at Wikimania. Neither person [Phillipe and the Arb] provided direct [public] evidence of what was said exactly at those conversations.
2) Arbcom came to a conclusion based on those conversations, without direct [public] evidence. And without any evidence from the accused.
3) Later, Fae provided a detailed accounting of his one conversation with Phillipe. Phillipe did not contradict this detailed account [in public].
That was the state of the evidence on that score, presented to the community. The gaps in evidence and the appearance of a rush to judgment are Arbcom's fault and should not have occurred and perhaps with better training they would not occur. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC) Bracketed material subsequently added, after Riskers comment below to clarify meaning Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
A better way (one way this could have gone down better).
1) Risker [or the testifying Arb witness] recuses -- as there is not a need for her participating, given multiple other Arbs.
2) Risker [or the testifying Arb witness] publicly presents evidence of what was said and what conclusions she draws from exactly what was said (if she wishes to make conclusions).
3) Phillipe is invited to respond, hopefully he does so with his recollection and what he draws from it.
4) Fae makes his statement. The other two respond/question.
5) Only then do the non-recused Arbs weigh-in with questions, community questions, conclusions etc. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)Bracketed material subsequently added, after Riskers comment below to clarify meaning Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
That would have gone down better, I agree. I think part of the reason everyone's so up in arms is because it was a little bit out of the blue. The case changed course on us suddenly. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • This belongs up above under the heading "unfounded assumptions", as none of the statements that Alanscottwalker makes above are true. I'm not going to encourage this kind of nonsense speculation with any further response. Risker (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
What is the truth, then? There were two conversations between Phillipe and one Arbcom member about Fae at Wikimania, correct? The evidence of what was said in those conversation was not put into public evidence, correct? Arbcom adopted a finding, which was later disputed by Phillipe in part, correct? Fae later made a statement, correct? Phillipe did not contradict Fae's statement in public evidence, after Fae made his statement, correct? So, what is untrue? I have added bracketed material to my statements to clarify, although it doesn't change the points made.Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps a more accurate explanation of what happened would be this:
  1. Arbcom receive testimony that Fae has used dishonest and underhand tactics when in disputes;
  2. Fae uses dishonest and underhand tactics against Arbcom;
  3. Arbcom see the evidence confirmed in Fae's actions and decide that it is high time to give him the boot.
Very few people know what went on between Philippe and Fae. There is, however, a lot of evidence out there of Fae using underhand tactics in other circumstances and little or none of Philippe doing so. Simple Bayesian logic indicates which to believe when they give contradictory accounts of events.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
No. 1) It appears only two people know what went on between Fae and Phillipe. 2) It appears that only two people know what went on between Phillipe in conversation with the Arbcom member; 3) Phillipe did not publicly dispute Faes account, after Fae gave his account. 4)What was said to the Arbcom member was not put into evidence. The gaps in evidence are all Arbcom's fault. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Can't you just assume good faith that Phillipe did provide a strong testimony for the Arbcom to present the evidence of Fae's dishonesty? Until Phillipe publicly clarifies your doubts, there's no ground to question the committee's judgement. But I believe Phillipe cannot discuss this openly for a reason, a good one to be sure. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 11:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
And then by definition we have to assume bad faith on Fae, but that is of course OK. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Assuming good faith on Phillip and the committee doesn't mean we assume bad faith on Fae. I praise you talent of making fallacy. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
"Can't you just assume good faith that Phillipe did provide a strong testimony for the Arbcom to present the evidence of Fae's dishonesty?" - Can't you just assume good faith that Fae did provide an honest testimony of what he discussed with Phillipe? Because that is all we have. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Sameboat: What do you mean? We do not assume evidence? It has nothing to do with good faith. No one has said that Phillipe can't speak? What could possibly be the reason? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
You can't blame the committee because Phillip remains silent. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
The committee is responsible for not laying out in evidentiary fashion, exactly what Phillipe said, upon which any decision could be based. The committee is responsible for not taking evidence in an orderly and public fashion. The committee is responsible for its processes producing the evidence upon which its decisions are based. The committee is responsible for doing this dispassionately and deliberately. The committee is responsible. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Only the statement from Phillipe would satisfy every party. Until he actively speaks up, I assume he concurs with the result of the case. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No, most people would be satisfied if the committee took information in a deliberate, orderly, public evidentiary fashion and then based its conclusions on that -- not a conclusory fashion, and not based on hidden statements (unless they can and do provide a solid reason why the statement is hidden, or preferably redacted, in part) -- as the basis for its decision, and Phillipe's silence merely means that Fae's account is uncontroverted. At the point of taking evidence, which is what we are talking about -- the evidentiary process -- there is no basis for your assumption. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No use pushing the committee if it only escalates the matter to the worse side. If Philippe and Fae's conversation was badly twisted by the committee just for adding accusation into Fae's wrongdoings, Philippe should have clarified, complained or defended for Fae ASAP. None of that happens up until now, after Fae has been indeffed. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
No. The point is to analyse the error in evidentiary process and correct it, not ignore the poor process. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It's not just the evidentiary problems that are the issue, it's the denial of basic fairness. The remedy to ban Fae was already being voted on before he had even been given an opportunity to put his side of the story. I'm sure it's not a coincidence that the only real-life lawyer on Arbcom, Newyorkbrad, posted that he was "awaiting Fae's statement before voting on this ban proposal." You would think that basic fairness would require that! If a judge was hearing a case for the prosecution, he wouldn't just jump straight to judgement and conviction without first hearing the defence. Instead, no fewer than seven arbitrators - SirFozzie, Jclemens, Hersfold, PhilKnight, SilkTork, David Fuchs and Roger Davies - voted without even waiting to hear Fae's side of the story. This was a gross failure of their responsibility to be even-handed. In my opinion, that kind of conduct makes them unfit to be arbitrators and I will certainly be drawing attention to their conduct in the next Arbcom election. Newyorkbrad, Elen of the Roads, Casliber and Risker acted more responsibly by waiting to see what Fae said in his defence before voting. There is no good reason for people elected to resolve disputes on behalf of the community to be act with such irresponsible haste, especially as there would have been no harm whatsoever in sitting on it for a day or two to allow Fae to have his say. This was not a situation where there was a risk of immediate harm and it's quite apparent from the tone of the comments that individual arbitrators' personal pique - which should never be a factor - was a major motive for the rush to judgement.

There's a wider problem here, though, which is that Arbcom's formal procedures have many gaps, and some of the existing rules are weighted against "defendants". There is actually nothing in Arbcom's voting procedures that requires it to give a "defendant" an opportunity to put forward a defence before it votes on a remedy. As we've seen in this case, it's quite possible under the existing rules for Arbcom to come up with a brand new finding, vote on it and vote for a ban without the person in question even being given a chance to put forward their side of the story. This is absolutely not good practice in any form of dispute resolution procedure. At the very least, arbitration on Wikipedia needs to be brought into line with good practice in dispute resolution processes elsewhere, because right now it's failing the most basic tests of fairness and propriety. Prioryman (talk) 09:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

@User:Prioryman -You need to declare your conflict of interest as a person that has received grants/money from Wiki UK/Fae's interested project - Youreallycan 10:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Why? Are you saying that anyone who has benefited from Wikimedia needs to declare an interest? Then I presume anyone who has benefited or been disbenefited (yes, no such word) by ArbCom needs to declare an interest. Any maybe anyone who's been blocked or banned? I really can't see why anyone criticizing of ArbCom needs to declare any possible interest. Should anyone who's praised or criticized Fae also declare an interest? Dougweller (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
@User:Dougweller - Are you involved in Wiki UK? Users that are strongly involved should declare - Nepotism might not quite be the right word - but for a small group of people in charge of one million pounds of charitable funds, there are clear issues in the organization- Youreallycan 11:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
There's no COI - I've never discussed grants or money with Fae. Remind me, why haven't you been indeffed yet for your perennial obnoxiousness? Now how about you address the substance of my comment? Prioryman (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
You have received grants/cash from organizations that Fae is/was the chair of. - You User:ChrisO are the violator with multiple arbitrations against you and a dysopping - your comment has no substance worthy of addressing.Youreallycan 11:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
So long as anyone isn't banned from this page their comments should be taken at face value. You haven't answered my questions, instead for some reason asking me if I'm involved. Are you going to ask everyone? Dougweller (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I know you are involved - as is User:Prioryman - no I don't need to ask everyone - Youreallycan 16:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
And here I thought you were serious about BLP. Yes, I'm a member of the chapter - I thought I should join after I did my OTRS training at the WMUK office - I don't know who funded it. That's a COI? Oh, and I met Fae at the OTRS meeting but we didn't do any plotting (in fact if we spoke to each other I don't recall it). If that makes me have a COI, then you'd better check to see if anyone actually attended the AGM, as by your reasoning they would even have more of a COI than I do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talkcontribs) 17:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Remind us, Prioryman, why are you still here, despite having been indeffed thrice? [34][35][36] I thought it was because one of the arbitrators you impugn above took pity on you, and decided to overlook your chronic infractions. JN466 15:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes. There is an element of due process (fairness) involved in evidentiary process. Seeing all the evidence first and then making conclusions, not making conclusions first. But if you have an orderly public evidentiary process, you reduce the fact or appearance of a denial of due process. There are at least three due process problems, here, the first you have alluded to, the second is that the Arb who spoke to Phillipe at Wikimania became a witness against Fae, thus compromising their role as Aribitratator, one cannot be both a witness and a dispassionate finder of fact; the third is seeing all the evidence against the accused. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I did find it surprising that nowhere is due process mentioned in Arbcom's procedures. There is a fourth problem that hasn't previously been mentioned which is the lack of any practicable route of appeal for Arbcom's decisions. Yes, in theory Jimbo is the final "court of appeal" but that is not a route which anyone takes seriously, as far as I can tell. In practical terms the only recourse is to appeal to Arbcom itself, but how likely is it that Arbcom will admit that it's got something wrong? If Arbcom's conduct during a case has thrown due process out of the window, what is the likelihood that it will find itself at fault? Human pride and institutional defensiveness, if nothing else, will count against it. Right now, if Arbcom commits an abuse of process there is no way of correcting it other than voting out the offending arbitrators, which could take years depending in which tranche of elections they're due to come up for a vote. There is no process for anyone other than Arbcom to review cases, nor for egregious mishandling of a case to be tackled. In effect we have a single "accountability moment" once a year and there is no accountability, no recourse and no effective oversight of how they have conducted themselves. What is needed, I think, is a much stricter set of rules governing what Arbcom does, combined with an independent appeals procedure that is empowered to review Arbcom's own conduct and set aside remedies if they have been passed without due process being followed. Prioryman (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
And if ArbCom is the lower court, who is the high court and who do you appeal to from there? John lilburne (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Technically the current appeal is to Jimbo. But I believe he has already said that he wants to remove himself from that role, and I can't remember when he last acted in that capacity. So we need a new appeal process for Arbcom decisions. But I'm not sure you'd need another layer on top of that - natural justice requires the right to appeal a decision, but not to keep appealing until you get your own way. ϢereSpielChequers 22:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Inquisitorial systems are not uncommon around the world. Arbcom has heard some evidence and looked for more to clarify things, which is something that happens within inquisitorial set-ups. Further Risker is not a witness. Philippe is. He gave her his evidence and she then discussed things with the rest of the committee with things proceding from there along inquisitorial lines.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I am more of an incrementalist, I think. The current process does seek to provide some measure of due process. It is probably best to just improve upon the model. More public, more accountable, more deliberate. If Phillipe is a witness, than he gives public testimony. The Arb is a witness, because without the Arbs conversation with Phillipe, there is no evidence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, I'd be willing to support adding a rule that if new evidence against a party is introduced in the PD phase, arbs are restricted from voting on FoFs/remedies related to it until the party has had a reasonable chance to respond. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Better, yes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Solution: Stop using ArbCom

There are some excellent points being raised in this sub-thread. However, contributors should understand the futility of this discussion. It will have no effect on ArbCom. The community ratified the Arbitration Policy just over a year ago. Since then, ArbCom has willfully violated it at different times. They have also violated their own procedures. Even if all of us agreed 100% that ArbCom must follow "policy foo", ArbCom does not have to follow it. In practice, they are above policy, above procedure. There are no consequences for their violations. There is no accountability loop other than voting, which is an abstract rather than specific remedy and offers no hope of reformation. Given this, the only means which we the community have to effect change is to stop using ArbCom, and develop a replacement process. Outlandish you say? Actually no. ArbCom's utilization has been in decline for the last four years at least. I have ideas along this line, but I'll pause for now and see where this planted seed grows. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Repeal and replace Surpreme Court of Wikipedia ? Sounds interesting.Ibicdlcod (talk) 03:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Ibicdlcod is correct. What you guys asking for is a supreme legal system. Requiring the project to arbitrate every case with standard of justice negatively affects our fundraising. In the end, you need to spend money for the perfect and time-consuming judicial procedure. This totally betrays the goal of a educational project. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Having an Arbcom that does NOT arbitrate every case with standard of justice negatively affects our fundraising. As a site that depends upon a community collaborating to create content, having a dispute resolution system that is broken and more often produces controversy than resolution is a betrayal of the project.-- The Red Pen of Doom 11:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
        • The more complex a system is the less effective it would be. Our donors not giving us money to play our judiciary game but writing an encyclopedia, I must remind you that if you've forgotten already. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • we are here to collaboratively write an encyclopedia, I must remind you if you have forgotten. And any collaborative work of this size is going to have disputes. And not having an effective dispute resolution process, whether complext or simple, is harmful to the process of collaboratively writing an encyclopedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Exactly, Sameboat, donors would give us money to write an encyclopedia, but the currently broken system of 'arbitration' is causing more damage to that writing than what they, presumably, prevent. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
"willfully violated" sounds highly speculative on your part. Your posts here have been high on rhetoric but light on evidence. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
"Highly speculative? Maybe Hammersoft does know what he is saying .. but as a first example, what about .. adding a party to an open ArbCom case, but not allowing for the full 7 days of evidence submitting for that party (or other parties who want to adjust their evidence accordingly) per "Editors named as parties to an arbitration case, and duly notified of it, are expected to participate in the proceeding. Any editor named as a party to a case, or whose conduct otherwise comes under scrutiny during the course of a case, will be notified of this by the Committee or its clerks, and, except in exceptional circumstances, will be given a minimum of seven days to respond, calculated from the date the case opened or the date on which they are notified, whichever is later."? ArbCom was made aware of those rules, but willfully ignored it, and closed the evidence phase early so the case would not drag on indefinitely. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)(adapted a bit Dirk Beetstra T C 12:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC))
  • @IRWolfie: Concur with Beetstra. In the case he is referring to, the arbitrator was directly informed of the procedure he was violating (see this thread). He actively chose to violate it anyway (last sentence). The points I noted remain. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Adding to this, this same Arbitrator needed approximately 2 extra days to get the proposed decision drafted. Surely, there the excuse is that they are just volunteers, the editors under scrutiny do not get that leeway of having 2 extra days (nay, they even get approximately 2 days less), because then we can not have the case drag on indefinitely. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I have been highly critical of Arbcom myself and I think that they have made a lot of bad calls, particularly regarding editors. Their decisions regarding editors have often been highly illogical and seem to incline heavily towards blocking in even the weakest cases just to get the case over. Sure they leave it open for long periods of time, sure they give folks a chance to talk about it, but in the end they all lead to long term blocks or bans and or desysopping. If you want examples take User:Rich Farmbrough, User:Will Beback or just about any other case regarding individuals. Even the case recently regarding User:Fae desysopped an active admin for what amounted to good faith efforts on the admin. Did the admin do some things wrong, sure, but not enough to warrant being desysopped just to prove a point and set an example. I think the good decisions are becoming infrequent and the reputation of Arbcom is being marred by a flurry of bad decisions masking the good ones. These are things that are and will continue to result in a loss of edits to the pedia, a loss of respect and faith in the decisions of Arbcom and is and will continue to affect the attgitudes and morale of the editing force. Kumioko (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree, there are way too many cases where things have gone completely wrong. User:Cirt desyssopped despite not having done anything wrong as an Admin. User:Trusilver was an excellent Admin here, there were never any problems with him. He was desysopped for unblocking an editor a day or so before his block was to expire. That editor was blocked because he voted in the de-Adminship RFC, when he wasn't allowed to edit in Wikpedia namespace. Why wasn't he allowed to do that? That's because after his physics topic ban he decided to write essays and argue a bit on policy pages, and the people watching his edits to police his topic ban, didn't like that so they asked for his topic ban to be expanded (there were no complaints from editors who he was actually editing with, e.g. when he was editing with me on my essay a huge deal was made about that, somehow my essay was argued to be "physics related", but they were not actually participating with me on my essay). And why was he then topic banned from physics in the first place? That was because he argued too much on the Speed of Light article. While he was wrong about that issue, he still was capable of contributing to physics, he is after all a tired engineering professor. An appropriate remedy for someone like him could be to let him contribute via his userpace, he would have been happy to do that. But no, ArbCom decided that they know better how to handle the problems, and the fallout of things not working was actually blamed on me and some others for daring to propose alternatives that would work better. I was restricted from commenting on that editor for that reason, and not because I was ever incivil or violated any rules. Another editor User:Likebox, an expert in theoretical physics who has contributed to many articles here was also restricted, but because he is more like the average person when it become to being falsely accused of causing problems, he couldn't take it, and he was indefinitely banned from Wikipedia for writing the name of that editor a few times in a provocative way. Count Iblis (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Kumioko, ArbCom did not desysop Fæ. Fæ decided to resign his adminship during the case, likely to avoid a result in which it was stripped from him. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually I was referring to Kwami. IRT the ordeal with Fae I initially opposed it but decided to stay out of it because I spent the last several months railing on Arbcom for other bad decisions and decided to sit that one out so I didn't come off as hounding. I'm not sure I made the right decision. After Fae did some really stupid things I started to change my mind towards the end in thinking that Arbcom might need to do something. I'm still sort of on the fence but generally I think that he became another victim if Wikiculture. I think he did some things wrong but didn't really warrant an Arbcom ordeal, but then he was dragged into it and tried to prove himself innocent and did a bunch of stuff during the case that helped to force Arbcom into the end ruling. In the end I don't think it would have happened if the case wasn't started in the first place and I think its a shame. I myself have been the subject of a Wiki-Witch hunt and I know how it feels so I am inclined to give him some slack. Once the torches are lit and pitchforks are firmly in hand its almost impossible to recover by remotely typing in rebuttals. Some things are better done in person. Thats one of the reasons I think the Arbcom process is a failing legal system and needs to be seriously reengineered. Kumioko (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Humor page

I created my first humor page, and it's about your muzzle! :D ❤ Yutsi Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 16:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way, happy birthday! Here's a pizza pie, just for you:
Delicious pizza

You Have Been Awarded a Barnstar!

WikiDefender Barnstar.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For making Wikipedia open and free ChrisStyles (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)